bsalis

Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?  

474 members have voted

  1. 1. Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?



Recommended Posts

For every bit of information that would "take the magic away of figuring things out", make it an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an extremely good idea. If it's just slightly faster and ahead, or slightly slower and behind, it could last in-game centuries I bet.

I think I have a task for my next episode... :D

EDIT:

Though as I think about it, it'd miss some of the functionality I'd like, and the ship actually does have to stay near Kerbin without re-entering its (invisible) SOI. You'd almost have to do it with HyperEdit to make sure it was a good orbit.

You don't have to send anything just out of SOI, just plot the escape and use the predicted orbit to place and adjust the transfer maneuver node. It also is very useful for finding your transfer windows from other planets - just use the craft to place the maneuvers.

Of course, never follow this flight plan, just wait for your transfer time and then recalculate proper ejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to send anything just out of SOI, just plot the escape and use the predicted orbit to place and adjust the transfer maneuver node. It also is very useful for finding your transfer windows from other planets - just use the craft to place the maneuvers.

Of course, never follow this flight plan, just wait for your transfer time and then recalculate proper ejection.

Ah-HAH. I see. So you just leave the ship in LKO, plot a maneuver to JUST eject in front of Kerbin (along its orbit), then on that orbit plan a 2nd node and drag it around and whatnot to get your encounter. If you have KAC installed, you can even delete the first maneuver node and then set up an alarm for when the transfer one would arrive, naming it "Transfer to Eve Incoming" or something.

Very clever. Still kludgy and a workaround for a proper planning node, but very clever nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to send anything just out of SOI, just plot the escape and use the predicted orbit to place and adjust the transfer maneuver node. It also is very useful for finding your transfer windows from other planets - just use the craft to place the maneuvers.

Of course, never follow this flight plan, just wait for your transfer time and then recalculate proper ejection.

Nice. I like this workaround for not being able to set a node further than an orbit away (can`t wait for a proper maneuver node planner where you can enter numbers directly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah-HAH. I see. So you just leave the ship in LKO, plot a maneuver to JUST eject in front of Kerbin (along its orbit), then on that orbit plan a 2nd node and drag it around and whatnot to get your encounter. If you have KAC installed, you can even delete the first maneuver node and then set up an alarm for when the transfer one would arrive, naming it "Transfer to Eve Incoming" or something.

Very clever. Still kludgy and a workaround for a proper planning node, but very clever nonetheless.

In all honesty if you have KAC you don't need to figure out when the transfer window is, just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all honesty if you have KAC you don't need to figure out when the transfer window is, just saying.

Sort of the whole point of the thread was getting a feature you currently need a mod for to become stock. Saying you can have that feature with a mod is a bit circular...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the wave of paragraphs...

I read that some users like to take the devs' intention into account before critisizing a feature (or the lack of).

While this is a very nice thing to do, I think it has little to no influence on how people will play the game. We don't play the game with the devs' will in mind, but with the gameplay and the tools they give us.

The problem here, is that the gameplay core mechanics and the tools given to understand it do not match.

We have a game that quickly goes from "play with moons" to "get your mind around orbital mechanics".

When I only played with moons (I started in 0.18, thanks to the demo) I didn't care and didn't need to know about Delta V. Chain crashing on the Mun crust was fast enough not to be bothering.

But things have evolved. As soon as I had the level to put bigass ships into orbit, I wanted to go to other planets.

I also didn't want to do ridiculously big missions and come back with 1400 units of liquid fuel in my pockets (pretending it's snacks has it's limits).

To start doing so, I had to stop playing the game for a week. My game time brutally morphed into crushing numbers into Excel, to undertand how much delta V I need to go in Orbit around other planets, and go back ; then calculate it (circumventing the usual design problems, but without the KSP Jazzy tune, nor the nice graphics and it was quite a bother, because I actually wanted to fling spaceships to Duna and stuff...).

Learning about delta V, I also learnt that it was useless, unless I learnt about transfer windows, which I had to calculate, and calculus isn't my strong suit.

I am not complaining because I had to learn stuff. This is a great opportunity and I liked it. But I hated it at the same time because I wanted to play a game that lacked a ton of info that I needed to play.

Even after calculating all my first Duna Mission characteristics, I didn't come with a good enough design. Once I had a Good enough design, I still had to learn how to fly it properly, and trust me, AFAIK, none of the displays I needed to get to the fun part (building, flying, orbiting...) would have helped me to play the game. They only would have allowed me to play it, while I wanted to have some Kerbal fun.

And as for the "newbies argument", I dare say that, at worst, new players won't understand, or care, or dare give a crap, but as soon as they will want to give their designs some thinking, they will take notive of how the numbers displayed behave, use/misuse it at first ; Then some will look it up on the wiki and others will deduce it's use from trial and error ; But in the end, everybody will feel better for having it than to, either give up due to a lack of accessibility from the game, or boredom because they don't like/don't have time for the math, or just have their fun game time spoiled by learning thing they are not so interested in (we can like space exploration and at the same time, keep our leisure-learning time for other subjects).

I didn't vote because we are to few to make a representative poll, but I hope I made a good case of why I think it is important to have more displayed info in the game, including Delta-V readings.

Edited by Vindelle_Sunveam
Added a bunch of columns, semi-columns and caps to helps reading. Also fixed some typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading a lot on these Posts i hav my say two two things here often stated.

1. The "mayority / minority" Argument: ARE YOU SERIOUS???? ONLY 348 VOTES OF ABOUT SEVERAL 10.000 (or 100.000) PLAYERS ARE REPRESENTING ALL?

Usually only ppl who are interested in a poll even read it. All ppl who didn't see the post ( in my opinion the real mayority) or don't care to read/vote (since they use mods or are fine whatever Squad decides) aren't represented. Such a poll would only representative if all ppl who play(own) KSP are forced to vote.

And what me most annoys (and probably others) is the black/white choice we have. From the post i read most favor something between. I voted for yes but it was a 55/45 decision. I only Need a dV in VAB/SPH. At least i can remember what i planned and can approximate how much % fuel (and thus how much dV) is left.

2. The "dV ist essential for Rocketeering" Argument:

I agree for the real space programms it is a essential Thing, but not for a game. In real Space Programms there is real impact of the mission success. E.g. lot of Money is involved, People earn their living through it, on manned Mission human lives are depending on it. All we Players can lose in KSP is the time and effort we spent in a Mission. In all that shouldn't have so much Impact on your daily live like a failure in real space programms since this is just a game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all that shouldn't have so much Impact on your daily live ...

For people with limited time in their days to allocate for playing games, the additional hours of time required for the process of interplanetary trial-and-error can have a significant effect on their gameplay experience. As I mentioned before, a round-trip to Jool can take a few hours to accomplish even when you use a craft proven to be capable. I can't afford to spend those hours multiple times just to develop a design that works. And so, I have to decide: download a mod, calculate the data myself (and wait until later to find out if I've done my math correctly), or avoid those types of missions. If the stock gameplay experience is intended to include long-duration interplanetary missions, then we need stock tools that will allow us to accomplish them in a time-efficient manner, or people with limited time to spend will be missing part of the core experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the stock gameplay experience is intended to include long-duration interplanetary missions, then we need stock tools that will allow us to accomplish them in a time-efficient manner, or people with limited time to spend will be missing part of the core experience.

Right. You don't really need it for Kerbin orbit and Mun stuff, but for fancier things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading a lot on these Posts i hav my say two two things here often stated.

Usually only ppl who are interested in a poll even read it. All ppl who didn't see the post ( in my opinion the real mayority) or don't care to read/vote (since they use mods or are fine whatever Squad decides) aren't represented. Such a poll would only representative if all ppl who play(own) KSP are forced to vote.

And what me most annoys (and probably others) is the black/white choice we have. From the post i read most favor something between. I voted for yes but it was a 55/45 decision. I only Need a dV in VAB/SPH. At least i can remember what i planned and can approximate how much % fuel (and thus how much dV) is left.

2. The "dV ist essential for Rocketeering" Argument:

I agree for the real space programms it is a essential Thing, but not for a game. In real Space Programms there is real impact of the mission success. E.g. lot of Money is involved, People earn their living through it, on manned Mission human lives are depending on it. All we Players can lose in KSP is the time and effort we spent in a Mission. In all that shouldn't have so much Impact on your daily live like a failure in real space programms since this is just a game...

So you don't really have an argument against having an ingame stock Dv display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only against invalid arguments. Personally it would be fine to have a dV readout in the VAB/SPH, when i plan a Mission. But after launch i personally don't need one. If my misssion Fails, it Fails because I made the Errors, be it in planning or executing. I won't blame a dV readout (may it be there or not) for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't blame a dV readout ... for that.

Loved your phrasing. :) From now on, when I crash a plane I'm blaming the altimeter for running out of digits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading a lot on these Posts i hav my say two two things here often stated.

1. The "mayority / minority" Argument: ARE YOU SERIOUS???? ONLY 348 VOTES OF ABOUT SEVERAL 10.000 (or 100.000) PLAYERS ARE REPRESENTING ALL?

Usually only ppl who are interested in a poll even read it. All ppl who didn't see the post ( in my opinion the real mayority) or don't care to read/vote (since they use mods or are fine whatever Squad decides) aren't represented. Such a poll would only representative if all ppl who play(own) KSP are forced to vote.

And what me most annoys (and probably others) is the black/white choice we have. From the post i read most favor something between. I voted for yes but it was a 55/45 decision. I only Need a dV in VAB/SPH. At least i can remember what i planned and can approximate how much % fuel (and thus how much dV) is left.

2. The "dV ist essential for Rocketeering" Argument:

I agree for the real space programms it is a essential Thing, but not for a game. In real Space Programms there is real impact of the mission success. E.g. lot of Money is involved, People earn their living through it, on manned Mission human lives are depending on it. All we Players can lose in KSP is the time and effort we spent in a Mission. In all that shouldn't have so much Impact on your daily live like a failure in real space programms since this is just a game...

1. when they do a poll in, say, the U.S.A, do they ask all 300 MILLION + inhabitants?

The reason the 'in the middle' choice isn't there is because it's a yes or no question: even if you only want the dv readout in the Vab, you still want it, which equates to yes.

Even if the your reply was 55/45, 55% is greater than half, therefore it goes under 'yes' (in your case). The poll is black/white because it is expecting a black/white answer to a black/white question.

2. Time and effort are worth just as much as money, hence why employees are paid. If I fail my heavily thought out mission because I unwittingly messed up a calculation, I've wasted my already limited time and effort. Now, if I have a built in Calculator that does this for me, the chances of my mission failing do to inefficient design drops to near zero: if the mission fails, it's on me. Knowing that in itself can save countless time wasted on fixing a design that isn't broken.

Look at Scott Manley for example: he does all of these amazing things, yet he still crunches numbers/ gets assistance. In fact most of the stuff he does REQUIRES intense calculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. when they do a poll in, say, the U.S.A, do they ask all 300 MILLION + inhabitants?

The reason the 'in the middle' choice isn't there is because it's a yes or no question: even if you only want the dv readout in the Vab, you still want it, which equates to yes.

Even if the your reply was 55/45, 55% is greater than half, therefore it goes under 'yes' (in your case). The poll is black/white because it is expecting a black/white answer to a black/white question.

2. Time and effort are worth just as much as money, hence why employees are paid. If I fail my heavily thought out mission because I unwittingly messed up a calculation, I've wasted my already limited time and effort. Now, if I have a built in Calculator that does this for me, the chances of my mission failing do to inefficient design drops to near zero: if the mission fails, it's on me. Knowing that in itself can save countless time wasted on fixing a design that isn't broken.

Look at Scott Manley for example: he does all of these amazing things, yet he still crunches numbers/ gets assistance. In fact most of the stuff he does REQUIRES intense calculating.

to 1.: No they wouldn't ask all. But if they want a representative poll, the would choose ppl to vote that based on the statistic distribution of the Population and ask them dircetly. They would Count the "Not voters" and based on that number they can estimate if their vote is representative. Under a certain percentage of Returns they wouldn't claim it is represenative. AND they would not start a biased poll. The poll question of this thread is biased (in my opinion).

THIS poll on this Forum will lack those points, since only ppl who actually visit this forum are asked. Second the poll question attracts voters subconsciously and consciously WANT a dV readout. The question isn't neutral on the subject. Any scientifically poll would not only ask a black/White question. they would include something like "other opinion".

This poll and poll question is like asking children in a candy store if they would like to have some candy.

to 2.

First: dV is needed for real live rocket engeniering. BUT not for a game. Real live rocket engeniering doen't have a quicksave / quickload function. Real live rocket doesn't have time warp Forward. Real live rocket doesn't have unlimited resources. Real live rocket doesn't have kerbals that would jump in any absurd craft you design.

AND MAINLY : If it were really needed in KSP than only those ppl that do the calculations themself or use a mod that acomplish this would ever gotten to the other planets. That is obvoiusly wrong.

Second: The game doesn't force you to plan missions like you do. YOU decided that, not the game. YOU has choosen to spend the amount of time and effort that was put into it. YOU have the Option to add lots of safety fuel and you decided to not do it.

YOU have decided that putting all that limited time and effort would be worth a successful Mission. And if YOU mess up it is suddenly not anymore?

Third: As you stated "because I unwittingly messed up a calculation". YOU did mess up. If you really heavily thought like you claimed, you would have double or triple checked you calcuations.

Fourth: Yes Scott Manley does interresting things. He decided that doing that would be fun for HIM and worth all the time and effort. If he uses help/assistance from other ppl or Tools then HE has decided that doing it by himself would be not worth the time and effort. But how something any other Player do something he doesn't decide. He just Shows what he did. And even that he Shows something he chooses for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is asking if KSP needs a dV calculator, the question is "Should KSP have a dV Calculator". Obviously it doesn't need it, as we are all having fun without it, but the question of should it have one is a legitimate one, and "Yes" is a legitimate answer whether you agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should add a new way to spend science where you upgrade the KSC computers with new features, with a readout of Delta-V being one of them. It would be a great new use for a science and a great way to let people choose whether or not they want features that could be seen as making the game "easier"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is asking if KSP needs a dV calculator, the question is "Should KSP have a dV Calculator". Obviously it doesn't need it, as we are all having fun without it, but the question of should it have one is a legitimate one, and "Yes" is a legitimate answer whether you agree with it or not.

Right! Yes is a valid answer. No is a vaild answer. but "I don't care would be a vaild answer to".

I stated that 2 arguments used where not vaild.

1. The mayortity/minorty arguments. how can a minority (348 of several 10.000 or several 100.000 ) of the Players in biased poll (as it is in my opinion, see my last post) represent a mayority/minority.

2. the Argument: real space programms needs dV calculation so there follows a game must have it too. A game can have it but it isn't mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The mayortity/minorty arguments. how can a minority (348 of several 10.000 or several 100.000 ) of the Players in biased poll (as it is in my opinion, see my last post) represent a mayority/minority.

I agree with this, using forum polls for anything other than forum affairs is highly questionable, statistically speaking.

2. the Argument: real space programms needs dV calculation so there follows a game must have it too. A game can have it but it isn't mandatory.

If you change "must" to "should" it's a perfectly valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this, using forum polls for anything other than forum affairs is highly questionable, statistically speaking.

If you change "must" to "should" it's a perfectly valid argument.

Your right, should would be the better formulated.

but i am not a native english Speaker and its late here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well myself, I'm glad the issue has now been resolved and engineers will be able to tell you some form of DV information.

In my opinion not having DV information crippled the long term playability of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think making it something you earn is a great way to go too, so first-time players can just kind of play around without being overwhelmed by readouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This should be a thing. Perhaps in the ALT-F12 debug menu. (I heard that there will be some atmo graphs there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the die and retry spirit in the current version of KSP.

As I stated in another thread, I'm mostly against anything that would reduce the player's "challenge".

The best accomplishment feeling I've had in this game was the first time I ever tried to go to Duna, I landed and instantly wondered how close could I get from being able to land back at Kerbin, so I tried to go as far as I could, and realised that I made it by myself, with no mods.

I don't think I would have even care about this kind of "achievement" if I just had to read a number to know what I could do.

On the other hand, I saw quite a few people that stated in other threads that they were happy after that many hours to be able to land on the mun.

That's why I really think this kind of feature belongs in the difficulty menu. As anybody ever complained about a game that have a good amount of difficulty customisation ? The only cons it would have would be to confuse new players which would automatically be fixed with the presence of the preset difficulties.

I don't think SQUAD should ignore any of these two kind of players.

Also, if it have to happen, the alternative of spending a "big" amount of science points to unlock this feature for one flight, like a "consumable" advantage, already seems more acceptable to me. The difficulty setting could even be the cost ratio.

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.