Will KSP get realistic in the Future?

[WanderingKid]

I'll have to put in a comment for "I hope not." I enjoy tinkering in a game. I don't really want to become a rocket engineer.

[EtherDragon]

Be sure to let us know when Orbiter allows you to construct your own vessels.

Seriously though, I think very few players want Orbiter-level realism, or at least Orbiter-level complexity. Part of what makes the realism in KSP's orbital mechanics palatable is the easilyy accessible interfaces for them, like map view or maneuver nodes.

That's essentially why I pointed out the KSP Mod community as well. For added realism in KSP, there are mods available. I prefer the core game to maintain it's current "simplistic" style.

[klgraham1013]

I'll have to put in a comment for "I hope not." I enjoy tinkering in a game. I don't really want to become a rocket engineer.

This, I think, is the hang up most anti-realism advocates have with pro-realism. I don't think we're asking you to be a rocket scientist. I believe the skills you've already developed playing KSP will easily translate to the more realistic game that some of us have in mind.

When I started playing with FAR/NEAR, Deadly Re-Entry, Life Support, Remote Tech, Etc. I wasn't suddenly burdened with learning advanced maths and sciences. I had to be a bit more careful, plan a bit more thoughtfully, but I certainly didn't need to dive into a text book, and the rewards gained from major accomplishments were that much greater.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sal_vager

[WanderingKid]

This, I think, is the hang up most anti-realism advocates have with pro-realism. I don't think we're asking you to be a rocket scientist. I believe the skills you've already developed playing KSP will easily translate to the more realistic game that some of us have in mind.

A fair enough evaluation, Graham, but I have a concern about the inertia of the route. Admittedly, this is hypothesis, but bear with me. The game becomes significantly more realistic. Let's say Gravity Turns are viable and functional, renewable food and O2 supplies are needed for the trip to Duna, and Engines fail to ignite on occasion. Not so horrible...

... but that brings in the next wave of "Can we have just a little more?". DRE is mandatory, next comes Remote Tech. And on, and on.

As long as the general premise that this is a game, not AutoCAD, stays in place, I'm good with making things react more realistically than 10k soup - 20k "There's wings on here, right?". My sincere concern is there are mods out there that bring in so much 'realism' that you take away the 'Let's light this candle and see where Jeb goes!!!!' fun, which is where we all started with this.

[klgraham1013]

...this is hypothesis...

Thank you for not saying theory. The lost difference between those words has lead to a downfall in the understanding of science in our nation.

...

It's a big pet peeve of mine.

Let's say Gravity Turns are viable and functional, renewable food and O2 supplies are needed for the trip to Duna, and Engines fail to ignite on occasion. Not so horrible...

... but that brings in the next wave of "Can we have just a little more?". DRE is mandatory, next comes Remote Tech.

Do you really think DRE adds more difficulty than life support? Playing with both, I'd say the opposite. I've lost many a more Kerbal through starvation than re-entry heat.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sal_vager

[Nathair]

... but that brings in the next wave of "Can we have just a little more?". DRE is mandatory, next comes Remote Tech. And on, and on.

Slippery slope just isn't a valid argument here. (Or ever, really.) There is no particular reason why adding difficulty options like life support would every lead to making them mandatory. On the contrary there are, as is quite apparent in this thread, some pretty good reasons not to make them mandatory. The fact that they don't even exist as an option should be a good indicator that the devs don't consider them of primary significance. But, even if such changes were to be proposed at some later date, then is when you argue against it. It's completely nonsensical to argue against the option now simply because you're afraid that maybe, someday, who-knows, it might possibly be considered as worth making the default.

The main problem I have with depending on mods for these kind of option is that mods just aren't dependable. Mod makers wander away, abandoning their mods. They get caught up in real-life stuff and mod updates lag days, weeks or even months behind game updates. Now we're left checking every day to find out if some (to us) critical aspects of our game are working with the latest game incarnation and each other. It's a pain. Make it game content and those issues disappear.

[Red Iron Crown]

Non-lethal life support might be an interesting middle ground. Say if a kerbal runs out he gains no XP for the mission and his skills are not usable.

[WanderingKid]

Do you really think DRE adds more difficulty than life support? Playing with both, I'd say the opposite. I've lost many a more Kerbal through starvation than re-entry heat.

Depends on your settings, but yes, I've burned up spaceplanes often enough that I consider DRE more difficult than LS. LS you know you need at the beginning and isn't subject to user error (usually). Screw up your AoA on re-entry and get too low before you bleed off speed and you're now flying a meteor and left half your wings behind.

Slippery slope just isn't a valid argument here. (Or ever, really.) There is no particular reason why adding difficulty options like life support would every lead to making them mandatory.

As your signature implies, it's a preference for a number of the folks who have played this game for a long time. Slippery slope argument or not, the only way to avoid falling is to be aware of it. You make a good point though, it's quite possible to make these things optional in the settings menu.

I was responding to where I see the issue with pushing heavy reality into the game. Slippery Slope isn't so much the argument as "Now the developers can work on this!", a common Sprint mechanic during development cycles.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sal_vager

[Vorg]

I would like to see a resource system built in to give reason for bases.

[Wallygator]

A slightly more visceral argument for a slightly higher realism factor (not total realism)...

I'm 54. I grew up on Mercury, Vostok, Gemini, Apollo, Estes... So when I built my model rockets I tested them and learned how they reacted to drag and thrust. Right now KSP is like bizarro rocket world. I would have never gotten a rocket to go straight in the air if I used ksp as a learning tool in 1967.

All I want for Christmas in 2015 is a proper drag / aero model. Everything else can be cartoon + mods.

[Pecan]

...I would have never gotten a rocket to go straight in the air if I used ksp as a learning tool in 1967...

Did you 'gotten' a rocket to go straight anyway?

Is 'straight' a good way to launch?

And would Jeb have gone to Mun in a day if he'd tried Apollo first?

... lots of stuff in the game without restricting yourself to 60- or 70- year old 'Earth' technology ;-)

[Wallygator]

Did you 'gotten' a rocket to go straight anyway?

Is 'straight' a good way to launch?

And would Jeb have gone to Mun in a day if he'd tried Apollo first?

... lots of stuff in the game without restricting yourself to 60- or 70- year old 'Earth' technology ;-)

Keeping it on topic... It's not about "earth technology" it's about the basic level of realism likely to benefit the game while maintaining playability AND credibility. My vote is for an improved aero/drag model.

[Steellwaters]

I say keep it simple but we need damage from drag (not deadly but damaging...or harmful?) and definitely a resource system.

I was thinking the other day.....food can be grown...hydroponics.....water can be recycled and air can be scrubbed(plants will help with food and air) so initially you have to store resources but the top techs can give you modules that will support x number of kerbals indefinitely.

a balance between realism and fun. let's implement all the physics but in a creative way.

[bonyetty]

I think that the most unrealistic feature of KSP is the ability to accelerate time. This has way more of an unrealistic effect on GAME PLAY than solar system size, ISP, life support, DRE or any other feature "realistic" advocates ask for. If realism is really what is what is being asked for maybe try not using the time acceleration feature of KSP. No mods required just patience and fortitude.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I think that the most unrealistic feature of KSP is the ability to accelerate time. This has way more of an unrealistic effect on GAME PLAY than solar system size, ISP, life support, DRE or any other feature "realistic" advocates ask for. If realism is really what is what is being asked for maybe try not using the time acceleration feature of KSP. No mods required just patience and fortitude.

And they thought the grind was bad NOW... lol.

[pandaman]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts too...

I say keep it simple but we need damage from drag (not deadly but damaging...or harmful?) and definitely a resource system.

I was thinking the other day.....food can be grown...hydroponics.....water can be recycled and air can be scrubbed(plants will help with food and air) so initially you have to store resources but the top techs can give you modules that will support x number of kerbals indefinitely.

a balance between realism and fun. let's implement all the physics but in a creative way.

Realism wherever practical, especially with regard to physics and atmospherics etc. , even if 'toned down' a bit for gameplay reasons, so that lessons learned in game have some 'real life' value.

Representations of other things that have real life implications and importance (such as resources and life support etc.) in ways that don't bog the player down with fiddly details they don't want, but feel 'believable', if not 'realistic' in game.

[RainDreamer]

I think that the most unrealistic feature of KSP is the ability to accelerate time. This has way more of an unrealistic effect on GAME PLAY than solar system size, ISP, life support, DRE or any other feature "realistic" advocates ask for. If realism is really what is what is being asked for maybe try not using the time acceleration feature of KSP. No mods required just patience and fortitude.

It is an acceptable break from reality in order to work as a game. I don't think there are many people would want to have the computer running 24/7 for 6 months or more just for a trip to another planet.

[bonyetty]

It is an acceptable break from reality in order to work as a game. I don't think there are many people would want to have the computer running 24/7 for 6 months or more just for a trip to another planet.

Thanks this was my point. Acceptable to whom? I would assume that Harvister feels that all the aspects of KSP that differ from reality are acceptable breaks from reality in order for KSP to work as a good fun game. And I agree, such a fun game.

[Jouni]

I think that the most unrealistic feature of KSP is the ability to accelerate time. This has way more of an unrealistic effect on GAME PLAY than solar system size, ISP, life support, DRE or any other feature "realistic" advocates ask for. If realism is really what is what is being asked for maybe try not using the time acceleration feature of KSP. No mods required just patience and fortitude.

Time warp and quicksave/quickload don't have anything to do with realism or the lack of it.

The whole point of simulations is to simulate something other than the real world at the same time as the simulation is running. The ability to quickly jump to any point in the simulation, to save a world state, and to return to a previously saved state is just the basic functionality of any simulation.

[bonyetty]

I could be wrong. (Yep here it comes) But aren't simulations developed to simulate and games developed to be fun. Fictitious green bipeds in fictitious craft in a fictitious universe seems to me to be a fun game. Or, are we just discussing definitions of the words realistic, simulation, fun and game(video game)? Although some definitions from my understanding can be subjective and fun to discuss.

Edited January 1, 2015 by bonyetty

[linuxgurugamer]

Keeping it on topic... It's not about "earth technology" it's about the basic level of realism likely to benefit the game while maintaining playability AND credibility. My vote is for an improved aero/drag model.

If this is what you want, then install either NEAR or FAR.

This is what I love about the game. It can be as cartoony as you like, or, if you want more (whatever), just install a mod. NEAR and/or FAR both install a new level of realism. If you want the solar system, there is a mod for that as well.

[bonyetty]

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?

Buzz Aldren is one of a few with the experience to judge a space programs realistic worthiness. He has been tweeting about the game Space Program Manager recently maybe you should check it out. Although he does refer to it (market it) as a game not a simulation.

[RainDreamer]

I think it would be better to leave realism to mods. They are doing a great job about it.

[pandaman]

I think it would be better to leave realism to mods. They are doing a great job about it.

If by that you mean things such as RSS, and other realism addons then yes I comletely agree.

But the essential 'behind the scenes' game mechanics should follow as realistic physics as is reasonably possible. By this I mean things like patched conics, which is not 'perfectly' realistic, but it is more than adequate and close enough for game purposes, and introducing a better atmospheric/aerodynamic model (which is on the way).

The planet sizes and distances are not what many players call realistic, but they work quite well for the game, the same 'laws of physics' apply as they would if they were bigger and further apart, but game play would likely suffer a little.

IMO The same basic principle should be applied wherever possible - if it can be done in a realistic way that's great, if not then compromise without sacrificing fun or noticeably bending the real laws of physics.

[Jouni]

I could be wrong. (Yep here it comes) But aren't simulations developed to simulate and games developed to be fun. Fictitious green bipeds in fictitious craft in a fictitious universe seems to me to be a fun game. Or, are we just discussing definitions of the words realistic, simulation, fun and game(video game)? Although some definitions from my understanding can be subjective and fun to discuss.

Simulations are technical constructs that are often used as components of a game. Games are structured playing, and they can have at least as diverse goals as other forms of enterntainment and art can. Probably even more diverse, because games often include other forms of entertainment and art as their components.

When we're talking about realism in games, the goal is usually not to make the game as difficult, tedious, and annoying to the player as possible, but about trying to make it isomorphic with reality. Time warping, reverts, and saves don't change the isomorphism at all, as they only allow jumping to a world state that has already existed or would anyway exist in the future. As a result, they're orthogonal to how realistic the game is.