re-entry heat concerns

[Deathsoul097]

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

Oh but it does, the new SAS changed everything. And look at what happened after the last art pass. The usually dull Mun is now a death trap for many players, because of all of the craters. I don't mind SQUAD implementing any of these things, DRE, FAR, etc. It could make the game better. What I am saying is that there is a fine line between a good realism feature, and a bad hyperrealism feature.

Just something I would like to say:

With FAR, and DRE you can do a realistic return on a mission. In the Apollo program especially, the pod was steered as a lifting body, to keep it in the upper atmo for longer, and stop it burning up on re-entry. I think a pod returning from mun shouldn't have to do this to survive, but it should not survive without multiple passes when returning from minmus etc. That is where a better flight program or a better heatshield comes in.

Also, to Kasuha, and nholzric, there would be heatshields of varying sizes, I would guess around the range of: 0.625m, 1m, 1.25m, 1.6m, 2m, 2.5m, 3m, and possibly further if they plan on adding larger parts.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[kBob]

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.

The reason I and others are saying make it so you can turn it off is to accommodate those who do not want their existing designs to be broken and we point out their is good precedence for this, you can turn off gravity which also a fundamental part of physics just like reentry heat they are both based on basic physics. These toggles are one way to accommodate people of different skills right now they may be listed as cheats but really they are the start of levels for various players and there is no reason not to include them, even if this was just a pure sim you might will want to be able to turn things off for that reason. By your logic the game should have no choices and be one size fits all.

Your argument is known as a slippery-slope which is why I say it is not logical. We are talking about reentry heat here and using past precedence as example other future items are not really our concern here, though I don't really see what is wrong with having levels, most simulators I've played had exactly that so people of all experience levels could enjoy it.

Reentry heat is based on basic physics just like gravity. These days people who are likely to be playing this game are probably as aware of reentry heat as they are of gravity so why can we turn gravity on/off and not reentry heat? If reentry heat had been include from the start it probably would indeed have an alt-F12 setting and people in both camps would be happy. It seems it was planned for but now it's not? Well I have to say if that is true than I am not recommending this game to anyone and those who were attracted to the game because of its "real world physics" are going to abandon it or never climb on board. Mods have problems I've only got one, a popular one, and I've already run into some problems, which is a good reason why basic physics should be in the basic game.

Edit: That may sound a bit harsh, I'm just a bit worried about the direction the game seems to taking, I realize it's early days yet and I'm still very hopeful these issues will get worked out.

Edited February 11, 2014 by kBob

[BLUESTREAK]

Absolutely. I remember the very first time I got orbital in KSP, back when I knew so little about the game. Finally! After all the explosions, I'd finally - oh, happy days - finally got Bill up there, and now all I had to do w- Oh, crap. Reentry. Oh hell, I forgot about that... The panicking realization that I was going to reenter, I didn't have any more fuel to maneuver - I'd killed another kerbal! Bill! No - but wait! that angle looks shallow - just right, by pure fluke, just enough, by god, to get Bill home. Just right that he wouldn't burn up or bounce to a higher orbit. Hell, it was tense. The first lick of flame around the capsule, the look of terror from Bill, the G meter creeping slowly up, would the capsule hold...? Yes! Yes, IT HELD. One of the tensest moments in any game I'd ever played. But there - yes, there! - the tiny parachute opening, billowing, bringing Bill safely home and not fried to a cinder as I expected. The feeling of relief was palpable, the triumph gloriou- wait, what do you mean, no reentry heat?

I'd give anything for every reentry to be that tense. No matter how good I get at this game, I want to know that what ever glorious achievements I guide my Kerbals to, it's not over until they're home again. Until they've gone through the terror of reentry, the crushing silence of radio blackout... No, the game is cheapened without it.

[kBob]

@Bluestreak...very well put.

[Capt Snuggler]

Absolutely. I remember the very first time I got orbital in KSP, back when I knew so little about the game. Finally! After all the explosions, I'd finally - oh, happy days - finally got Bill up there, and now all I had to do w- Oh, crap. Reentry. Oh hell, I forgot about that... The panicking realization that I was going to reenter, I didn't have any more fuel to maneuver - I'd killed another kerbal! Bill! No - but wait! that angle looks shallow - just right, by pure fluke, just enough, by god, to get Bill home. Just right that he wouldn't burn up or bounce to a higher orbit. Hell, it was tense. The first lick of flame around the capsule, the look of terror from Bill, the G meter creeping slowly up, would the capsule hold...? Yes! Yes, IT HELD. One of the tensest moments in any game I'd ever played. But there - yes, there! - the tiny parachute opening, billowing, bringing Bill safely home and not fried to a cinder as I expected. The feeling of relief was palpable, the triumph gloriou- wait, what do you mean, no reentry heat?

I'd give anything for every reentry to be that tense. No matter how good I get at this game, I want to know that what ever glorious achievements I guide my Kerbals to, it's not over until they're home again. Until they've gone through the terror of reentry, the crushing silence of radio blackout... No, the game is cheapened without it.

couldn't have put it better!

[Deathsoul097]

-Snip-

Okay. This just changed my stance on Re-entry from "On the fence" to "Yes! But only if it makes sense!"

EG: I do not want to not even have heating effects, and then have stuff just disappearing or exploding from "Re-entry heat". Other than that, I am all for it.

Kudos to you, good sir.

EDIT: No-one has directly replied to me, or tried to argue my points. Does that mean I'm right, and have valid points that people can't counter, or am I just coming in and being stupid, so everyone is ignoring me?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Capt Snuggler]

EDIT: No-one has directly replied to me, or tried to argue my points. Does that mean I'm right, and have valid points that people can't counter, or am I just coming in and being stupid, so everyone is ignoring me?

Your points have been pretty well balanced and I for one, agree with you.

Also, to Kasuha, and nholzric, there would be heatshields of varying sizes, I would guess around the range of: 0.625m, 1m, 1.25m, 1.6m, 2m, 2.5m, 3m, and possibly further if they plan on adding larger parts.

this. plus radial ones for fuel tanks on space planes etc. what ever happens I'm sure there would be a variety of shapes and sizes. Edited February 12, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I may be repeating the words of others here, but the lack of re-entry heat in the game does seem like an obvious omission (the obviousness being exacerbated by the visual effects). BLUESTREAK's post put it very well.

I do think the temperature parts of the game need improvement in general though - at the moment we have a bunch of mods filling these gaps in different ways - deadly re-entry, KSP Interstellar etc.

Also, the point about restricting "crazy" "Kerbal-ish" design: imagine one of Whackjob's creations loaded up in a game with deadly re-entry enabled, and coming in to atmosphere with enough heat shields added to survive - wouldn't that be a sight to see?

Re-entry heat wouldn't stop your crazy contraptions - it would inspire you to make them even crazier.

Edited February 12, 2014 by S4qFBxkFFg

[Dodgey]

kBob, though I am now indifferent about reentry heat, I do believe that we can agree to disagree about your argument and move on, I do thank you for remaining civil unlike others on this forum, good debating with you.

Regards

Dodgey

[lajoswinkler]

Yes, it's the tension BLUESTREAK is talking about that makes KSP awesome.

[kBob]

kBob, though I am now indifferent about reentry heat, I do believe that we can agree to disagree about your argument and move on, I do thank you for remaining civil unlike others on this forum, good debating with you.

Regards

Dodgey

Yes I'd decided to make that my last post here I generally figure if I can't sway someone in two or three posts it isn't going to happen, but then I had to compliment Bluestreak for summarizing what we expect so nicely, and now say yes thanks for staying cool (sorry) too, and I always try to present my arguments without heat (sorry again ). This is really my last word on the topic, well probably.

[rkman]

Until stock ksp has reentry heat i'll be using the light weight 2 man lander pod (which presumably can not realistically survive reentry) as command pod instead of the heavier 3 man pod. That means: yes, i want reentry heat.

[Deathsoul097]

Your points have been pretty well balanced and I for one, agree with you.

this. plus radial ones for fuel tanks on space planes etc. what ever happens I'm sure there would be a variety of shapes and sizes.

Thank you. I belive the spaceplane fuselages are supposed to have heatshields, and perhaps the wings will have to, once they redo the spaceplane system. However, I would agree, there would need to be radials as well.

EDIT:

Actually, now that I think about it, the stack heatshields would probably go up in size in increments of 0.625m. Though, it may be nice to make the stack shields be radially mountable.

EG: 0.625, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.125, 3.75, and maybe, just maybe, up to 4.475m wide. And perhaps the radial one for spaceplanes would automatically change shape and size to match the fuselage. That may be going to far, but I like the idea.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Deathsoul097