Let's Pick on KSP!

[moogoob]

I voted unrealistic & should stay that way. With a caveat - aerodynamics were very very close to getting my vote because while I don't currently use Deadly Reentry I think there should be the need for things like heat shields and such, and a better aero model is a first step in that direction. Maybe not to the ultra-detailed level of FAR, but in that direction definitely.

[LordFerret]

I would like to see Kerbal EVA's where the little guy actually turns and faces direction relative to your angle of view.

[razark]

Customers: Give us more!

Squad: It's not ready for release.

Customers: We don't care. We know it's in progress. Give us NOW!

Squad: Well, ok, here's some of the unfinished stuff.

Customers: What the hell is this crap?!? Why would you release such obviously unfinished work?

[PDCWolf]

Well, I would vote all of the things you named if I could, but you made it a one option only so I picked planets. Even so, I still believe KSP should -with a well though of difficulty level- correctly display the dangers of spaceflight and how complex it is. And yes, it can do that while remaining a game, that's what abstractions are for, aren't they?

It's been known since the beginning that what we have now was merely a placeholder.

Planets and overall universe size were also placeholders because there was no timewarp, engine effects are placeholders, stats are placeholders until they get around balancing stuff, NERVAs using LF/O was supposedly a placeholder that would tie into the resource system and then resources would also work with the planned life support system, if I remember correctly, sounds are also placeholders and haven't been updated either. The only placeholders that have been properly updated are the KSC, and the space-plane parts.

KSP suffered the same thing minecraft went through on the indev-alpha transition: They used placeholder assets but the community grew attached to them in a form or another, or rather got accustomed and now is afraid of change and puts up a lot of bull excuses to avoid it, and this makes the devs afraid of change too, even though they already have the money, they still fear the "hate" they are going to get (Protip: they won't).

[lolstock]

I find the Kerbals incredibly annoying. I get the idea that you want little green men and all, but when I can't jump without landing and falling over? That's seriously obnoxious. EVAs are a huge pain because controlling a Kerbal is like trying to walk a cat on a leash. If EVAs are built into the game, why isn't some sort of legitimate body movement simulation?

At some point you have to sacrifice cuteness and fantasy for gameplay and realism. You don't need to limit people who don't want to play in a fantasy world. People who do want to role play will still be able to.

[vexx32]

Well, more to the point, KSP isn't intended to be a true-to-life, 100%-accurate simulation of a physical universe. Sure, Squad will do their utmost to make it a damn good approximation because it really does make the gameplay pretty spectacular in a lot of ways, but if you want a totally-accurate simulator, you're probably barking up the wrong tree. As has probably been suggested previously, if you're into the nitty-gritty realism of space flight, perhaps you would enjoy Orbiter more fully. Squad cannot please everyone; one lone game based on spaceflight cannot possible cater to every aspect of the player community, which is one of the many reasons such a diverse number of mods exist.

I'm not going to get too deeply in to this whole mess, because frankly this entire argument is entirely pointless and a lot of back-and-forth bickering with little to no actual evidence being presented either way, just a whole lot of "look! you can see this! right guys? right? no? it's just me? whatever, I'm still right!" as far as I can see.

However, I would like to remind you all to keep it civil. Not for the first time, this whole thing is being blown lightyears out of proportion in almost every way possible, and everyone involved needs to calm down before rules start getting broken -- again. Please remember that merely disagreeing with someone on one subject does not mean they are somehow an inferior human being; this attitude seems to be far too prevalent, and it really ought to stop.

Of course, that's up to you guys, one way or the other. If we get too much more heated in here, we may have to pull the plug. Please be more considerate to your fellow users.

[Renegrade]

Well, more to the point, KSP isn't intended to be a true-to-life, 100%-accurate simulation of a physical universe. Sure, Squad will do their utmost to make it a damn good approximation because it really does make the gameplay pretty spectacular in a lot of ways, but if you want a totally-accurate simulator, you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

Well, HarvesteR (I think? or was it MaxMaps?) mentioned that 'authenticity' was a goal. KSP has a fair amount of that (compare say, Space Engineers reactionless thusters/gravity generators/other magic vs KSP), but there's still a few things which are clearly un-authentic:

- The aerodynamics system is ridiculous to the extreme (#lolfake levels). Sounds like 0.91/0.27 will be addressing this point, so good enough for now.

- Thrust varies with Isp, not fuel consumption. This is like a fifteen minute fix.

- g0 is 9.81. Actually it's less than 9.81. Don't make it 9.82. This should be simple to fix. Literally five minutes.

- The massless parts are rather un-authentic, although fixing that in a reasonable way is a bit more than the above three (given that aero is already being worked on, and the other two are twenty minutes total).

Aero is the only really hard thing on the plate there, and it's already being worked on.

It doesn't have to be nitty gritty to have a fair degree of 'authenticity'... just a few lil fixes.

[vexx32]

See, those expectations there -- those are perfectly realistic. Some of the others I've heard... *shakes head*

AFAIK, the g0 being 9.82 is actually only in one part of the game -- where thrust/Isp calculations are done (according to NathanKell; I was talking to him about it, not long ago). For all other purposes it's 9.81. Your point still stands; this is just a bit of weird trivia.

I have my fingers crossed for some aero improvements in the next release, and that's my only real gripe at present. All we can do is wait and see.

[Nitrous Oxide]

However, I would like to remind you all to keep it civil. Not for the first time, this whole thing is being blown lightyears out of proportion in almost every way possible, and everyone involved needs to calm down before rules start getting broken -- again. Please remember that merely disagreeing with someone on one subject does not mean they are somehow an inferior human being; this attitude seems to be far too prevalent, and it really ought to stop.

Of course, that's up to you guys, one way or the other. If we get too much more heated in here, we may have to pull the plug. Please be more considerate to your fellow users.

Oi, just venting my frustrations at the game, don't mean to seem like I'm attacking those who disagree, I'm just pretty passionate about my gaming so I apologize if I'm getting a bit heated. I mean, I've played around 500 hours of KSP, and unfortunately the more I play, the more I notice the flaws of the game (like the universe moving around the ship and floating point errors galore \o/). That and typing things up is a good way to read it later and think about how stupid it sounds myself. I always think it's good to let things like that out, especially because then the rest of you can kinda prove me wrong.

I for one don't want KSP to be super-realistic, however there are still key elements to gameplay that I kind of shake my head over... like re-entry being more or less cosmetic without DRE... I like the small-scale, I think KSP is amazing for learning about orbital mechanics and getting people interested in space. I just wish the pace of development was a little quicker, I guess. And maybe I wish they had picked a more... capable engine...

[LABHOUSE]

Where is the all of the above except last two?

[cantab]

I find the Kerbals incredibly annoying. I get the idea that you want little green men and all, but when I can't jump without landing and falling over? That's seriously obnoxious. EVAs are a huge pain because controlling a Kerbal is like trying to walk a cat on a leash. If EVAs are built into the game, why isn't some sort of legitimate body movement simulation?

A very good point. Notwithstanding that Kerbals have funny proportions, that the game is about building vehicles, and that we do have the jetpacks, I think Kerbals should walk and run faster and better. It'd make even simple missions more fun if you can jog over to the next crater without it being an exercise in patience.

- g0 is 9.81. Actually it's less than 9.81. Don't make it 9.82. This should be simple to fix. Literally five minutes.

While yes this is a bit goofy and I assume a simple fix, you're talking about a 1 percent error. It's utterly immaterial to the gameplay.

[PDCWolf]

Well, as for expectations, just look at this and connect the dots yourself. http://www.themittani.com/media/kerbal-space-program-qa-devs

[cantab]

Mostly he talked about the resources system. That was cancelled based on internal playtesting, and looking at that overcomplicated chart of made-up substances I say thank Kod it was. I don't thing I'd have enjoyed KSP as much if it was full of interplanetary fetch quests like some grindy MMORPG, which is what I fear that resources system would have resulted in.

As for other stuff mentioned, well let's have a rundown

Rayne said they were going in and they were:

Tweakables.

NPC kerbals.

Training Kerbals to do stuff for you.

Re-entry heat, sort of - stated for .19 and we got graphics but no gameplay on that front.

Optimization. KSP still has major performance issues but tests have shown a steady improvement since .19.

Science experiments.

Launch pad without that old tower that everyone crashed into.

Parts useful for space stations, eg the big docking ports.

Empty tanks you can launch (Possible with tweakables).

Rayne said they weren't going in, or not soon at least, but they have by now.

Crew transfer.

Rayne said they were going in and they haven't yet.

Resources, and everything related to them.

Off-Kerbin construction. (Beyond what we can do with docking)

Water physics updates, I think.

Planet discovery system.

Overall, not much that Rayne was talking about nearly two years ago hasn't made it into the game.

Edited January 11, 2015 by cantab

[PTNLemay]

As Scott has often suggested, I find it would be great if the Kerbals could somehow go mad if they were kept in a capsule for too long. I'm sure I could get a one-man capsule to Laythe and back without too much trouble, but I refuse to do so for RP reasons. I won't send them there until they can have LARGE living space during the trip.

You could even add in a late-game tech called hibernation sleep. A kind of attachment you can clip onto the capsule to nullify the effects of claustrophobic crazies.

[razark]

Training Kerbals to do stuff for you.

I'd debate this. I can't train Kerbals to do anything. The most I can do is use them as a discount flight computer. Training them to do stuff implies that they can actually learn to do stuff (like execute maneuver nodes, or follow a simple flight plan), and get better at it the more they do it. Of course, what we have now may well be what was being talked about in the interview. But I had higher hopes than this.

Edit:

You also missed the planet discovery mechanics in the "haven't added" list.

Edited January 10, 2015 by razark

[PDCWolf]

Mostly he talked about the resources system. That was cancelled based on internal playtesting, and looking at that overcomplicated chart of made-up substances I say thank Kod it was. I don't thing I'd have enjoyed KSP as much if it was full of interplanetary fetch quests like some grindy MMORPG, which is what I fear that resources system would have resulted in.

As for other stuff mentioned, well let's have a rundown

*list*

Overall, not much that Rayne was talking about nearly two years ago hasn't made it into the game.

I'd look at it differently:

Will happen in 0.19 but didn't

•Reentry heat

Will happen in the next two to four updates but didn't:

•Resources

•Discovery system

•Flight model engine rebuilt making you able to control inactive ships

•Build ships in flight (definitely doesn't mean docking or related to that, it was added on the previous update)

•Buoyancy update

•Telescopes

•Proper tweakables (only a small part did, not as it was mentioned on the resource chart)

"Still on the table"/Discussed

•FTL

•Other planets/star systems

•Weather

•Eva First person

•Life Support (supposed to tie into resources according to chart)

A lot has happened, sure, but it's either incomplete or totally unrelated, and a lot of good ideas were said to be thrown out the window such as resources and other star systems. Bad things have also happened (curse)

As for training kerbals, what was talked about was closer to this:

Training them to do stuff implies that they can actually learn to do stuff (like execute maneuver nodes, or follow a simple flight plan)

and not what we have now, but we still have some open tiers for that stuff on the kxp system.

All of this shows that there's nothing to expect except for that what they tell you two days before releasing an update, given that with every update they may do a 180º turn like what they did with multiplayer and resources or delay things or just keep them from happening because god knows why (reentry heat was supposedly ready according to the interview). So yeah, talking about expectations or "what we should expect" is pretty much out of discussion.

Also, resources was cancelled based on the same internal playtesting that left us with sticky launchpads, buggy claws, buildings with visible seams both in texture and mesh, etc. So yeah, keep that in mind.

[vexx32]

As Scott has often suggested, I find it would be great if the Kerbals could somehow go mad if they were kept in a capsule for too long. I'm sure I could get a one-man capsule to Laythe and back without too much trouble, but I refuse to do so for RP reasons. I won't send them there until they can have LARGE living space during the trip.

You could even add in a late-game tech called hibernation sleep. A kind of attachment you can clip onto the capsule to nullify the effects of claustrophobic crazies.

Depends what you mean by 'go mad'. I mean, I'm sure it'd be incredibly amusing if they did something akin to how insanity is portrayed in Don't Starve, but it doesn't fit the game that well, sadly.

I think that kind of setting should be something that changes depending on difficulty, really -- Easy mode might have no requirements of the life support kind, Normal might have some of the less annoying ones, and Hard would be your tricky rationing and making sure you have enough oxygen to last your trip (plus spares), etc., etc. (Just using life support as an example because I'm not awake enough yet to figure out how an insanity mechanic might work.)

But even then, I still feel like it's a step removed from the intent of the game. Sure, you should probably take care of the Kerbonauts, but I don't think that the game should penalise you for not wanting to have to factor them in every single time. If life support (and/or insanity or however it was done) were implemented, I can see a lot of players simply not bothering with using Kerbals to fly the rockets at all anymore -- after all, a probe core is lighter, doesn't require life support (apart from electricity), and can do quite a variety of science, once you unlock the gadgets. The only thing Kerbals can do that probes can't (yet) is make a crew & EVA report, take surface samples, and plant flags... the latter three which now have to be unlocked anyway, and by the time you get to those, you've often got most of the science gadgets anyway.

[PTNLemay]

Depends what you mean by 'go mad'. I mean, I'm sure it'd be incredibly amusing if they did something akin to how insanity is portrayed in Don't Starve, but it doesn't fit the game that well, sadly.

I think that kind of setting should be something that changes depending on difficulty, really -- Easy mode might have no requirements of the life support kind, Normal might have some of the less annoying ones, and Hard would be your tricky rationing and making sure you have enough oxygen to last your trip (plus spares), etc., etc. (Just using life support as an example because I'm not awake enough yet to figure out how an insanity mechanic might work.)

A good gameplay mechanic would be to lose the experience levels you gain for your Kerbs, when he comes back to Kerbin he gets them back though. If it reaches zero during the mission then the Kerbal dies, this way a seasoned space veteran with 5 stars can last longer than a 1-star newbie. I agree though that you would have to make this optional, otherwise a lot of people who like the game as-is would get upset. I just find it's ridiculous that I can put a Kerbal in that sardine can and send him out into space for 10 years and he'll come out at the end with a smile on his face.

As for the consumables, that'd be easy to implement. Some mods do it already, where you have payload parts that you need to build into your ship. The heavier the part, the more consumables they hold, the longer your mission can last.

[Sof]

I'd look at it differently:

Will happen in 0.19 but didn't

•Reentry heat

Will happen in the next two to four updates but didn't:

•Resources

•Discovery system

•Flight model engine rebuilt making you able to control inactive ships

•Build ships in flight (definitely doesn't mean docking or related to that, it was added on the previous update)

•Buoyancy update

•Telescopes

•Proper tweakables (only a small part did, not as it was mentioned on the resource chart)

"Still on the table"/Discussed

•FTL

•Other planets/star systems

•Weather

•Eva First person

•Life Support (supposed to tie into resources according to chart)

Re-entry, and weather are to be added when the aerodynamics gets its overhaul. Squad wants to do all air based fixes in one go.

Resources were cancelled for a reason. It wasn't fun, it wasn't balanced and it wasn't comparable to the rest of the game. Squad explained why it didn't come in the 0.19 update.

Flying inactive ships and building ships in space was never on the table

FTL and other star systems has been denied by Harvester as ever being part of the game scope. Don't lie, they were never coming stock

Life-support was going to be added when they found a working resource system. No point adding it before. It's lack of existence is due to the resources not being added yet, so you can't count that as double.

[Renegrade]

While yes this is a bit goofy and I assume a simple fix, you're talking about a 1 percent error. It's utterly immaterial to the gameplay.

The difference might be small, but it's still wrong. 9.81 isn't super precise either, but at least it isn't actively wrong. Standard gravity is 9.80665. You could round that up to 9.81, but not to 9.82.

(I don't even know how this could have happened to begin with. Who the hell just types in a constant anyways? I always go to Wikipedia or such and copy paste the constant there. This isn't the 70s anymore. This isn't a pencil-and-paper exam!)

Keep in mind that KSP is probably the best orbital concepts educator out there. Let's not impart the lesson of mental laziness, eh?

(compare also this tiny change's effect with how LITTLE time it would take to fix, especially when they're in there changing the even more wrong thrust code, vs. how long it will take to implement aero and how much effect that has -- trust me, the ratio isn't favoring aero at all)

[Sof]

The difference might be small, but it's still wrong. 9.81 isn't super precise either, but at least it isn't actively wrong. Standard gravity is 9.80665. You could round that up to 9.81, but not to 9.82.

(I don't even know how this could have happened to begin with. Who the hell just types in a constant anyways? I always go to Wikipedia or such and copy paste the constant there. This isn't the 70s anymore. This isn't a pencil-and-paper exam!)

Keep in mind that KSP is probably the best orbital concepts educator out there. Let's not impart the lesson of mental laziness, eh?

(compare also this tiny change's effect with how LITTLE time it would take to fix, especially when they're in there changing the even more wrong thrust code, vs. how long it will take to implement aero and how much effect that has -- trust me, the ratio isn't favoring aero at all)

It's not that accurate. Gravity varies by more than that across the globe.

Besides, Kerbin isn't Earth. This is a non-issue.

[cantab]

As Scott has often suggested, I find it would be great if the Kerbals could somehow go mad if they were kept in a capsule for too long.

This seems a bit dark for the game for me. Insanity is often played for laughs but it's a pretty horrible thing really.

You also missed the planet discovery mechanics in the "haven't added" list.

Well spotted, I added that into my list. I will say that the idea of not announcing new planets isn't good, since that's a major new feature that helps sell the game.

All of this shows that there's nothing to expect except for that what they tell you two days before releasing an update, given that with every update they may do a 180º turn like what they did with multiplayer and resources or delay things or just keep them from happening because god knows why (reentry heat was supposedly ready according to the interview). So yeah, talking about expectations or "what we should expect" is pretty much out of discussion.

Well, I feel that's a rather pessimistic view. Squad haven't majorly changed their mind that often - and I'd rather they didn't dogmatically stick to an announced plan to be honest. Stuff taking longer than we'd like, and being put on the back burner and ignored for several updates, is common I'll grant. But I do feel that a look at Rayne's comments from two years ago shows that Squad have a general direction and vision for KSP. Yes, there are changes, and yes some of those changes are towards "less" in terms of features and capabilities, for example the Kerbal skills and you are saying the tweakables (not that I see that myself). But overall I see steady progress being made.

Incidentally, I'm not even sure what the whole "controlling inactive ships" means, so I skipped over that altogether in my listing. You can already freely switch between craft, and I believe the game can track resources on inactive ships. Stuff in physics range will even keep on burning. What else is there?

[PDCWolf]

Re-entry, and weather are to be added when the aerodynamics gets its overhaul. Squad wants to do all air based fixes in one go.

Resources were cancelled for a reason. It wasn't fun, it wasn't balanced and it wasn't comparable to the rest of the game. Squad explained why it didn't come in the 0.19 update.

fun is subjective, balance is not a factor here, just look at the rest of the game, and I don't even know what do you mean by not comparable to the rest of the game.

Flying inactive ships and building ships in space was never on the table

[citation needed]

FTL and other star systems has been denied by Harvester as ever being part of the game scope. Don't lie, they were never coming stock

Not lying, just quoting our old community manager on his words.

Life-support was going to be added when they found a working resource system. No point adding it before. It's lack of existence is due to the resources not being added yet, so you can't count that as double.

[citation needed]

[Renegrade]

It's not that accurate. Gravity varies by more than that across the globe.

Go to the wikipedia article and read. I didn't hotlink to their front page. Also read the article on Specific Impulse, and ISO 80000-3:2006.

Standard gravity IS NOT LOCAL GRAVITY. In the use of thrust and Isp, it's simply a conversion factor.

It's basically like converting from inches to centimeters - you multiply (modern) inches by 2.54 to get centimeters. It doesn't suddenly become times 276 because you're on the Sun, or 2.55 because you're too lazy to copy and paste, or 2.539895 because you're on a tall mountain.

An engine with a specific impulse of 370 seconds has an effective exhaust velocity of 370 * 9.80665 = 3,628.4605. Not 3,633.4.

The seconds notation is popular partly because it's independent from the measuring standards - 370s is 3,628.4605 m/sec OR (approximately) 11,904.38 ft/sec.

Also, Kerbin's surface gravity is 9.81, not 9.82. So even if it were some local gravity thing, it's still wrong.

[Brotoro]

I can't get into a tizzy because they have a 0.1% error in a constant.

Certainly the aerodynamic model needs to be improved...but I'm used to the placeholder model and have learned how to fly stuff in it. This week I've been experimenting with aircraft designs for flying in Duna's atmosphere...which is probably a waste of time if the aero model is going to get updated soon.