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

No not really because it would remove the basic essence of ksp wich is launch-fail-try to fix problem-launch-rinse and repeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, definitely. I barely play KSP any more because it's incredibly frustrating to do anything beyond going to orbit without having access to delta-v readings. Being completely in the dark to the capabilities of a rocket isn't fun.

Edited by Holo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gauga159 said:

No not really because it would remove the basic essence of ksp wich is launch-fail-try to fix problem-launch-rinse and repeat

I've been using a dV readout mod for years and this is still how the game plays for me. There are many, many modes of failure for which the readout does nothing to prevent; lack of dV data means that in stock many times a mission has failed before it leaves the pad, except the player doesn't know it until much later. Even that is not so bad just around the Kerbin system, but once the player goes interplanetary the time commitment for each trial in the trial and error process becomes prohibitive for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gauga159 said:

No not really because it would remove the basic essence of ksp wich is launch-fail-try to fix problem-launch-rinse and repeat

Also, this is what you consider the basic essence.  I consider it the lego-style building and orbital mechanics.  The need-to-fail game design is poor game design, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.6.2016 at 1:41 AM, Red Iron Crown said:

The canonical answer is HarvesteR felt it removed too much uncertainty from the game.

You'd be guessing wrong. Squad's own internal data showed that only a minority of players use mods at all (I can't seem to dig up the reference for this, I distinctly remember it because I found it surprising, too). Most players play stock.

Personally, I think some sort of delta-V meter should be added to stock. People who don't want it can just not use it, while those who do can benefit from it. It doesn't have to be perfect (and very likely won't be, there are a *lot* of edge cases), it just needs to handle most cases well enough until a player becomes experienced enough to figure out when it's going wrong. Even just handling the simple, serially staged case would be a big step forward.

The game purports to be educational about rocket science out of one side of its mouth while ignoring the two most important numbers in spaceflight, TWR and delta-V.

No, it doesn't. That calculation would give an approximation of the vessel's current velocity.

Yes, removing to much uncertainly makes sense. having dV information makes the game much easier for an experienced player. 
The dV information will not give an new player much useful information, an advanced player know that going to from LKO to mun orbit cost around 1100 m/s landing on mun around 800 and returning from surface to Kerbin around 1100 more so he would not try to land on mun with 1500 m/s left. in Mun orbit, he could go to minmus and land there instead :)

Just an minority of the players are advanced, in this I say going to other planets make you advanced.  

And I agree that not having it would disadvantage console players a lot. And I agree it don't have to be perfect, your burn will not be perfect either, people live well with having variable isp in atmosphere and vacuum something who will add issues anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gauga159 said:

No not really because it would remove the basic essence of ksp wich is launch-fail-try to fix problem-launch-rinse and repeat

I have been playing for YEARS with KER installed and this is exactly my play style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

There are still stock players who don't use mods to think of. And it's not like a stock implementation kills the mods, FAR is still going strong (and more sophisticated than ever) even though stock aero was vastly improved. Should they have not improved stock aero because FAR already existed? And that's leaving aside the console versions, where it will likely be stock or nothing.

the console version is what im thinkin of most.  anyone on pc can mod the game without any preknowledge of how to do so.  i use myself as an example since ksp is my only pc game at the moment. although i did pc in the early 2000's.  and is the only game ive ever modded and took only a few minutes of reading to figure it out.

but console players wont have this option and I feel like many wont have the patience for the amount of trial n error learning this game entails without proper readouts.  and putting a simple warning about it possibly being wrong is something that kind of gels with the way everything else is written.

it makes more of the game accessible for new players and the crowd that isnt mathematically inclined.  and you still have alot of trial n error since the game doesnt give you  a delta v map, tells a player nothing about transfer windows,  and understanding how to efficiently manuever in orbit is an entire section thatll need its own trial n error. 

including a difficulty called rocket scientist that has it disabled could also be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DD_bwest said:

I feel like many wont have the patience for the amount of trial n error learning this game entails without proper readouts.

DD_bwest,

 I understand where you're coming from, but I need to reiterate that trial and error is not required without the readouts. The stock game *does* provide enough information to figure out DV and t/w. I understand that a lot of players don't want to go to the trouble, but they could if they wanted to.

 There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod.

Best,

-Slashy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

DD_bwest,

 I understand where you're coming from, but I need to reiterate that trial and error is not required without the readouts. The stock game *does* provide enough information to figure out DV and t/w. I understand that a lot of players don't want to go to the trouble, but they could if they wanted to.

 There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Subjectively:

Yes, because when I load up a video game, it's not because I want to have fun, it's because I want to do math!

Yes, sarcasm, and yes, I understand many people may enjoy the calculations and the accomplishment that comes with completing a mission you planned all on paper.  However, I may be crazy, but I don't think the best answer for a video game is player-calculated math.

 

Objectively:

KSP, being as open-ended as it is, is a lot of things for a lot of people.  Trying to keep everyone happy, especially when everyone is playing the game for a slightly different reason than the next person, is quite a monumental task  Some people never leave the atmosphere.  Some people prefer to calculate every little manuever.  Some people just like building wacky contraptions and watching em explode... and every combination thereof, plus any number of other reasons.

I guess what I'm saying is: I certainly wouldn't object to such a readout, assuming it were reliable, as long as it's an option.

To be all things to all people?  Not possible.  But making something a wide variety of folks can enjoy?  That's what we already have :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

DD_bwest,

 I understand where you're coming from, but I need to reiterate that trial and error is not required without the readouts. The stock game *does* provide enough information to figure out DV and t/w. I understand that a lot of players don't want to go to the trouble, but they could if they wanted to.

 There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod.

Best,

-Slashy

while that mind set works for those who play it on pc, i think consoles cater to a different crowd that isnt into playing a game that requires them to do complicated math in their own.

if consoles get mods tho it kind of changes things, but i fully do not expect to see ksp mods on consoles since its a major thing for even AAA games to get them.

figuring out delta v on your own is duable with the info your given, but it greatly effects the difficulty. i know people who would love a game like thia but are essentially useless at math and they play solely on console.  having it as an option on easier settings seems like a very simple solution since those who dont want it can simply not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

DD_bwest,

 I understand where you're coming from, but I need to reiterate that trial and error is not required without the readouts. The stock game *does* provide enough information to figure out DV and t/w. I understand that a lot of players don't want to go to the trouble, but they could if they wanted to.

 There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod.

Best,

-Slashy

The average gamer that is going to try the game does not know what the hell Delta-V even is or how to figure it out.  The game needs to teach new players the role of fuel weight in rocketry and needs to give meaningful information to the player when they are constructing a vessel.   Without knowing what the DV of a vessel is and what your TWR is for each stage you are really just left with trial and error.  

Lets say I am just starting out for the first time, I build a rocket that almost makes it into orbit, but ran out of fuel before I could circularize.  Back in the editor, do I replace the three SRBs with a single big liquid fuel engine?  Will that work better, worse?  Will it give me more fuel to go farther, will it be able to to lift the payload off the ground even....  The game does not present enough information to answer these questions.  In my opinion it should.

The first rocketry tutorial should be called "What is Delta-V and why should I care?"

Edited by eberkain

Share this post


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

while that mind set works for those who play it on pc, i think consoles cater to a different crowd that isnt into playing a game that requires them to do complicated math in their own.

if consoles get mods tho it kind of changes things, but i fully do not expect to see ksp mods on consoles since its a major thing for even AAA games to get them.

figuring out delta v on your own is duable with the info your given, but it greatly effects the difficulty. i know people who would love a game like thia but are essentially useless at math and they play solely on console.  having it as an option on easier settings seems like a very simple solution since those who dont want it can simply not use it.

DD_bwest,

 My response isn't an argument in favor of leaving the readouts out of the stock game. It's merely a correction to an false statement.

Omitting the readouts, by itself, doesn't force players to go trial and error. It's only when the information is omitted *and* the player chooses to not learn/ do the math *and* the player can't/ won't use a mod.

 As for whether it *should* be included or not, I'm impartial. Doesn't matter to me either way.

Best,
-Slashy

1 hour ago, eberkain said:

Lets say I am just starting out for the first time, I build a rocket that almost makes it into orbit, but ran out of fuel before I could circularize.  Back in the editor, do I replace the three SRBs with a single big liquid fuel engine?  Will that work better, worse?  Will it give me more fuel to go farther, will it be able to to lift the payload off the ground even....  The game does not present enough information to answer these questions.

eberkain,

 Oh, it certainly does provide enough information to answer those questions and more. It just doesn't provide the information in a readily accessible form. In fact, the player could figure out not only how much t/w and DV their current design makes, but which engine is ideal for any stage in terms of mass and cost without even entering the VAB. It's possible to design entire missions without even firing up KSP. Just a matter of how crazy you want to go working around the limitation.
 I understand that most people don't go to such lengths and I'm not saying they should. I'm just saying that they *could*.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is even though the game does give you the option to do the math yourself it doesnt exactly explain what the math is or why you should.  Case in point - I fired up KSP with some of my students the other day for a fun and relaxing afternoon class.  When presented with a rocket that failed to reach orbit the students natural reaction was to add more fuel and more thrust, they simply did not appreciate that one cancels out the other to a certain extent.  Furthermore there is no in game Dv map so even if a new player was well aware of the rocket equation there is still some guestimation involved in mission planning.  KSP is a difficult game to learn and even harder to master, Don't loose sight of that fact.  If squad expects success in cross platform gaming and in the future want to release more titles with a reputation for "great games"  I think they are going to need more hand holding tutorials and at least an option in the stock game to dumb that math down for the player base.  I use a mod, can the same be said for playstation owners?

 

Slashy is correct to say its possible to plan a mission from scratch, the question is does the game tell you how to?  why you want to? and enable you to do so without consulting additional resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2016 at 0:18 PM, Red Iron Crown said:

I've been using a dV readout mod for years and this is still how the game plays for me. There are many, many modes of failure for which the readout does nothing to prevent; lack of dV data means that in stock many times a mission has failed before it leaves the pad, except the player doesn't know it until much later. Even that is not so bad just around the Kerbin system, but once the player goes interplanetary the time commitment for each trial in the trial and error process becomes prohibitive for many.

I was going to post something very similar to this ^^ , but I can't phrase what RIC said any better than he did.

Try, fail and learn is fun and works well for the early game, but once 'bigger plans' take shape it makes perfect sense that even kerbals would want to make sure they take enough fuel for the journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any down-side to a "potential dV assuming simple staging" in the Engineers' Report.

On 6/17/2016 at 2:35 PM, GoSlash27 said:

There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod.

1) I guessed until the Mun.  During that time would not have bothered to look at a dV report even if I saw it accidentally I wouldn't be looking up Kerbin escape velocity and Mun's orbital velocity to see if I had enough.

2) I enjoyed doing the math myself the first few times, including after installing the KER mod, which includes a dV calculation, because I was making sure that I understood what KER was telling me.
But there is a lot of un-fun burden in finding the fuel masses and tank masses (without forgetting to put the fuel back in) and remembering that KSP specifies I_sp as specific impulse times Earth's surface gravity.

3) I used the KER mod, but then removed it on (unproven) suspicion that it increased my frequency of game crashes in the vehicle assembly building.   The patch in Claw's stock bug-fix modules works for me, so KER is back today, but now I have the disappearing icons upon returning to the assembly building, so next time I play KSP I'll try to remember to check mod versions.

With KER installed, the quick feedback on how design-changes affect dV is interesting in the same way as the other build-and-experiment aspects of KSP, so I think it would appeal to most people who would be interested in KSP in general.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want to "waste" years for goto an planet, and then "ha-ha , you lack DV :P "

orbiting things is one thing, if i fail i had waste 5 minutes.

but if i go interplanetary, it will take a long time to reach something.
:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sereneti said:

I dont want to "waste" years for goto an planet, and then "ha-ha , you lack DV :P "

orbiting things is one thing, if i fail i had waste 5 minutes.

but if i go interplanetary, it will take a long time to reach something.
:(

Indeed what you need is Wernher von Kerman ! 

But it should be less verbose and explain in two words if the rocket si able to get you to destination or not ... and if it is able to bring back you home.
#SQUAD !
It's from 2013 that I ask for it ! >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use mechjeb.
That has a good DV readout.
- thats avoid to have to less DV for something....

i dont know, imho is that a simple script

Share this post


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



...  i dont know, imho is that a simple script

Looking at earlier posts in this thread you will see that the answer is 'no', not if you want it done properly.

Actually I do suggest you read them, it is very interesting and informative as to why it's not as easy as it seems, from guys who do actually ''know".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would settle for an in-game stripped-down TI-84 equivalent (no graphs or scripting) and a better vessel stats tab that included staged wet/dry mass. Preferably in a window the user could drag around the screen and put where they see fit.

 

The TI-84 is a graphing calculator, for those who don't know. It does a whole lot more than just graphs, though.

Edited by DaMachinator
Not everyone knows what a TI-84 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.6.2016 at 1:25 PM, pandaman said:

Looking at earlier posts in this thread you will see that the answer is 'no', not if you want it done properly.

Actually I do suggest you read them, it is very interesting and informative as to why it's not as easy as it seems, from guys who do actually ''know".

Mechjeb estimate is good enough for everyday use, atmosphere already add lots of error. srb and crossfeed is complex, base serial staging and drop tanks are pretty easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Mechjeb estimate is good enough for everyday use, atmosphere already add lots of error. srb and crossfeed is complex, base serial staging and drop tanks are pretty easy. 

I use KER, and I do find it's good enough for me too.  I don't automatically assume it's 100% accurate, especially for more fiddly stuff, I use it as a guide and add a bit to allow for my sloppy piloting anyway.

But that's not really the point, a stock implementation needs to be able to deal with more 'adventurous' designs more accurately than KER or MJ can,  and/or at least inform you if it can't give you an accurate reading because of your particular staging set up etc.  And the problem with KSP is there are an infinite amount design arrangements to calculate for. 

Share this post


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

I use KER, and I do find it's good enough for me too.  I don't automatically assume it's 100% accurate, especially for more fiddly stuff, I use it as a guide and add a bit to allow for my sloppy piloting anyway.

But that's not really the point, a stock implementation needs to be able to deal with more 'adventurous' designs more accurately than KER or MJ can,  and/or at least inform you if it can't give you an accurate reading because of your particular staging set up etc.  And the problem with KSP is there are an infinite amount design arrangements to calculate for. 

No, mechjeb and ker is accurate for normal use. dV to lanuch depend a lot of air resistance and profile, my latest payload cost me 4 km/s as it was less aerodynamic than an barn, I had 4.5 km/s.
The ones who experiment with various designs and know that they are doing know that even with an launch in vacuum twr is important, an tanker who lift from Minmus with 1.1 local twr will use far more fuel than one capable of .5g acceleration. 
However for normal crafts you need around 800 m/s to land on mun and a bit less to leave, if you have less than 1600 m/s in orbit don't land, if you do be prepared to eva kerbal for circulate. this is that is important. Not if your get it 50 m/s wrong. 
Now add that both mechjeb and ker show pretty much the same result and source is public. Main issue with mechjeb is that it dislike dropping stuff like material labs even if not needed on Mun return.
And yes stuff like docking tanks, using rcs to help burn and reducing weight or simply calculating how much fuel you duna lander need from the mothership to land on Ike then max dV is 2km/s is outside of scope, Her you calculate or look at lander in VAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In career, it's especially frustrating if you use the "guess" approach because you don't want to install mods or bother with pieces of paper every time you design a new launch vehicle.

Especially when you are playing in "no-revert" mode, the process starts boiling down to:

* Design craft for a specific mission objective (e.g. target orbit)

* Launch.

* Find out the hard way that your craft does not have enough fuel to reach its destination. Perform a contingency abort with your reserve fuel.

* Wait for craft to re-enter and land/splash down.

* Repeat from first step until you can reach the target orbit.

Now I usually don't mind a bit of trial and error, but this becomes very boring and tedious after 3 or 4 missions if you're playing on the edge of your facility restrictions. It would be nice to have at least some indication of a craft's Delta-V, especially considering the maneuver nodes are also indicated in m/s so the delta-V number is already an important gameplay metric. Right now, you can plan a maneuver that has X m/s of delta-V, but there is no way of finding out if craft Y is even remotely capable of executing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:

In career, it's especially frustrating if you use the "guess" approach because you don't want to install mods or bother with pieces of paper every time you design a new launch vehicle.

Especially when you are playing in "no-revert" mode, the process starts boiling down to:

* Design craft for a specific mission objective (e.g. target orbit)

* Launch.

* Find out the hard way that your craft does not have enough fuel to reach its destination. Perform a contingency abort with your reserve fuel.

* Wait for craft to re-enter and land/splash down.

* Repeat from first step until you can reach the target orbit.

Now I usually don't mind a bit of trial and error, but this becomes very boring and tedious after 3 or 4 missions if you're playing on the edge of your facility restrictions. It would be nice to have at least some indication of a craft's Delta-V, especially considering the maneuver nodes are also indicated in m/s so the delta-V number is already an important gameplay metric. Right now, you can plan a maneuver that has X m/s of delta-V, but there is no way of finding out if craft Y is even remotely capable of executing it.

Maneuver nodes being expressed in m/s is an excellent point. 

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.