Will KSP get realistic in the Future?

[bluemun]

I´m asking because I look for a realistic Space Program Simulation. But I don´t think that KSP is as realistic as it could be.

My big Problems are ... building a rocket is way too easy in KSP, physics have not much influence.

The Kerbals don´t die when under high g!

This are my first observations on KSP when looking over Youtube-Videos.

I thought this would be more serious ... more realistic. But it don´t look so. Or ist there a way to get is really realistic?

[cantab]

Realism Overhaul, a group of mods and configurations designed to do just that for KSP.

Deadly Reentry, the specific mod that adds destructive re-entry heating and g-force fatalities.

Orbiter, a freeware spaceflight simulator that predates KSP and is considerably more realistic, but lacks the rocket-building aspect.

[Rithsom]

Squad is trying to keep KSP from being too realistic, in an effort to keep it fun. It will probably remain as unrealistic in the future as it is now.

[Kegereneku]

From my point of view KSP was never meant to be what we call a "simulator".

It's realistic perk are meant to give a unique game experience but fun design and gameplay are at its core.

At a fundamental level it cannot be both realistic and fun equally, it require do gameplay simplification and abstraction to be humanely playable, even if you happen to live in a world where most 12 years old can design their own real interplanetary rocket after school.

And this isn't a bad things at all.

The unrealism of KSP is why we can launch a rocket manually in 5 minutes, control spaceplane at hypersonic speed and the like. With too realistic setting would come things were nature isn't letting us have our cake and eat it.

But if you seek realism, search for a game that sacrifice accessibility for realism. Like say Orbiter.

[Parallax]

there's a lot of room for ksp to be more realistic, before its "too realistic", unfortunately, not everyone agrees

[Overfloater]

Im not anticipating a hard core simulator to come out of this but I'd like there to be some side effects from landing on the sunny side of moho o_O

[Astroman29]

You can always try Orbiter

[juanml82]

Wikipedia claims trained humans can survive 50+ Gs for a brief period, so I don't see why kerbals dying of excessive g forces (and you aren't going to subject them to more than 20-30 Gs anyways) would count as realistic.

[Daze]

It's my dream to see a super-realistic stock KSP

[wolfedg]

Hyper realism is far from the direction of the game so far and its target demographic, so I don't see a need to change the direction of the game and alienate a large portion of the playerbase. For the realism crowd there is already Orbiter and of coures the option to develop an entirely new game. Personally, i like the direction of the game so far and don't want them to change it.

Edit:however on the same token I don't want to see it get dumbed down anymore either.

[Pecan]

...building a rocket is way too easy in KSP, physics have not much influence...

Kerbals are aliens! They don't need life-support either ^^.

Meanwhile - physics has a huge effect on how your rockets fly and are probably more than any other space-simulator that lets you build your own.

[Megalodon 720]

I love KSP for the fact that it isn't very realistic, I like the souposphere that we have and I like the fact that I don't have to worry about life support.

[Red Iron Crown]

I believe it will get a bit more realistic with the upcoming aero update, though of course it won't be 100% realistic as the game needs to be playable by people who aren't aerospace engineers or rocket scientists. The balance between realism and accessibility will likely always favor accessibility in the stock game, IMO.

I don't really consider fun and realism to be opposites, realism is quantitative while fun is qualitative so they're not really comparable. What is fun for one might be unfun for another, while what is realistic is always realistic.

There is an active community of modders and players who prefer a more realistic game, adding things like more realistic rocket engine behavior, life support concerns, realistically sized planets, etc. If you want a more realistic game, look into Ferram Aerodynamic Research, Realism Overhaul, RealFuels, Real Solar System, TAC Life Support, etc, to move closer to a realistic simulator-type game.

[Motokid600]

The only thing that NEEDS to happen imo is better aero ( for proper.. REAL gravity turns ), reentry heating and thrust scaling. Those three are very important rocketry fundamentals that even KSP should abide by. The rest can always be modded in to whatever extent of realism you desire as Red Iron Crown just said.

[cantab]

Re-entry heating I'm hopeful we'll see just because it leads to the chance for awesome destruction. Something big deorbiting can be quite the sight.

Life support I want to see simply because it makes the player think about mission duration, and then facilitates other game aspects linked to time. However I'm less hopeful the stock game will actually include it.

[TheReaper]

Get mods if you want, it is likely that devs might improve aerodynamics (perhaps implenting NEAR to stock) but other then that, i really doubt that. Game is meant to be the balance between mainstream gameplay and nerdy realism, and it does that as best as it can. if you are one of the realism grinding players. just install a bunch of mods.

[Motokid600]

Get mods if you want, it is likely that devs might improve aerodynamics (perhaps implenting NEAR to stock) but other then that, i really doubt that. Game is meant to be the balance between mainstream gameplay and nerdy realism, and it does that as best as it can. if you are one of the realism grinding players. just install a bunch of mods.

The game is also meant to inspire and teach people. The game can very easily be used in a classroom. When it comes to the engines in KSP they are teaching the concept completely backwards. And their needs to be heat. Major fundamentals...

[TheReaper]

The game is also meant to inspire and teach people. The game can very easily be used in a classroom. When it comes to the engines in KSP they are teaching the concept completely backwards. And their needs to be heat. Major fundamentals...

is that not why we have kerbaledu now? so we dont need to force the game in one direction

[MKSheppard]

I'd like to see a more logically laid out tech tree by 1.0; right now, in Beta Than Ever; we have the following annoyances:

1.) You have to research unmanned probe technology; but start with a mercury-equivalent.

2.) You get one of the best engines in the game, the LV-T30 right from the start -- with 320 sea level and 370 vac ISP; which enables SSTO performance from the start.

3.) You have a spaceplane runway and hangar; but no jet engines or wings from the start?

4.) No basic science equipment such as a barometer, temperature probe, etc at the start?

There's a whole lot more of annoyances like that regarding starting out in career mode presently.

[Motokid600]

is that not why we have kerbaledu now? so we dont need to force the game in one direction

Basic rocketry is the only direction when it comes to engines, atmosphere ( The new atmosphere simply needs to just gradually thin as you get higher at the least. ) .. and heat. Without it KerbalEDU is pointless. Theres more to spaceflight then just deltaV and orbital trajectories.

[SmartS=true]

Physics has a HUGE influence on spacecraft in KSP. Try getting into orbit by going straight up, or pointing at the Mun and burning straight at it. Anyways, if you want it to be more realistic, get the Realism Overhaul set of mods.

[Wallygator]

IMHO higher levels of realism do not inhibit ease of game play. Additive UI elements, tutorials, difficulty settings and appropriate balancing of non-physics elements (costs, performance, reliability, experience and training, etc.) can all contribute to an enjoyable play environment in conjunction with improved physics realism.

To be slightly more evocative, I feel too many people fail to appreciate the value of strong realistic physics. Keeping things too simplistic will ultimately lead to KSP being relegated to a lower standing in the long term. There is no reason this game cannot combine a fun comical flare with a solid real physics backbone. No excuses.

[foamyesque]

To be slightly more evocative, I feel too many people fail to appreciate the value of strong realistic physics. Keeping things too simplistic will ultimately lead to KSP being relegated to a lower standing in the long term. There is no reason this game cannot combine a fun comical flare with a solid real physics backbone. No excuses.

Preach it!

Proper aero, re-entry heating, and proper Isp/Thrust changes with altitude are critical things. Yeah, they can be modded in, but they shouldn't have to be.

Life support is also a big want for me, ideally in a form that makes designing an indefinite-duration mission an actual challenge. Give large space stations an actual use.

[PLAD]

I think KSP is great the way it is, thanks to the availability of mods. I used Orbiter when it came out long ago, but the difficulty of doing basic tasks like building a rocket or landing made it harder to enjoy the excellent physics simulation. Stock KSP is a great way to be introduced to astrodynamics, I've had a lot fun the last few months playing with flybys to find the lowest-dv paths to the various planets, I can concentrate on that and ignore things like fuel boil-off or ignition counts. But I also made a Realism Overhaul install for when I want to wrestle with a lot of more realistic details. The key is I can tweak the features as I wish, so for me it will be a long time before I tire of this game.

And getting around to the original subject of this thread, try Realism Overhaul with the recommended mods. No more returning from Mun in a command can with no heat shield, or launching a pancake!

[flekota]

I´m asking because I look for a realistic Space Program Simulation. But I don´t think that KSP is as realistic as it could be.

My big Problems are ... building a rocket is way too easy in KSP, physics have not much influence.

The Kerbals don´t die when under high g!

This are my first observations on KSP when looking over Youtube-Videos.

I thought this would be more serious ... more realistic. But it don´t look so. Or ist there a way to get is really realistic?

In hard I'v had the simplest things happen to the simplest things Keep Kerbin on