Devnote Tuesdays: The Really Hot Edition

[Hodo]

Well looks like I am going to lock my auto update in STEAM so it doesnt update my KSP passed .90. At least not until FAR is updated to work in it.

[FlowerChild]

True. However, I tend not to use mods with Dv and TWR because they have so many other things that aren't very related.

A simple thing, perhaps an official add-on would be in order, the same accessibility as a mod, but still stock.

Huh. That's a fair point and one I hadn't considered given I've never wanted that info displayed in game.

I *might* (no promises as I have a lot of balls in the air right now) be able to rig something up along those lines actually. I already have functional code for displaying mass in the VAB from before when Squad added that to the info panel, and I could see it being a useful debugging tool for my modding even if I don't want to use it while playing.

I'll have a think on it and will PM you if it comes to anything.

[Bill Phil]

Okay, then?

I still wing it pretty often, even if I know my Dv, I wing the transfers, and the landings, except I know altitude when I land.

[Red Iron Crown]

To me, *knowing* that a mission will succeed, or that one approach is more efficient than another without experimenting with different designs to prove it, tends to make the in-flight portion of the game rather dull. For me, I think the fun in KSP comes from the interplay between the design and flight aspects of the game, and how mistakes in one area can be compensated or planned for in another.

This position doesn't hold water for me (not to single you out, I've heard it from others). It implies that the only way missions can fail is not enough fuel or thrust, and that a dV/TWR calculator somehow tells you how to build an efficient ship. For me, neither of those are true. I use KER, which gives me all that data, but I still manage to screw up missions in other ways, like piloting error, neglecting essential equipment like solar panels, or even design issues like insufficient structural rigidity. Similarly, you still have to experiment to discover how to build an efficient ship, the calculators just give quicker and more direct feedback when you're onto a good thing.

Most of all, the idea of investing hours into a mission that is mathematically excluded from success even before pressing the spacebar is incredibly unappealing to me. All the piloting skill in the world is not going to get an ion lander up from Tylo's surface, nor is it going to save enough fuel to overcome a deficiency in delta-V.

[Superfluous J]

Most of all, the idea of investing hours into a mission that is mathematically excluded from success even before pressing the spacebar is incredibly unappealing to me. All the piloting skill in the world is not going to get an ion lander up from Tylo's surface, nor is it going to save enough fuel to overcome a deficiency in delta-V.

Hear, hear.

I personally find that having enough TWR and dV for each step just challenges me to find new, more creative ways to totally screw up a mission.

[CaptainKipard]

Again the argument has devolved into Kerbal way vs Human way of doing things....

[Bill Phil]

??

Adding a Dv/TWR readout doesn't change the "way" it's done at all. I could find out for myself without mods and my gameplay style would hardly change. However, it would be much easier to have an in-game readout. Perhaps balance it to be a certain accuracy at Tier 2, and more accurate at Tier 3?

Besides, the Kerbal way is more like build-test-fly-repeat, which isn't that far off from some human ways (see Goddard).

[federicoaa]

Having enough dv for a mission does not guarantee you are going to finish the mission, you will probably overspend when you make a mistake. On the other hand, there's no way you are going to finish a mission if you don't have enough dv.

This kind of situation is fun when you are trying to get into orbit, you spend a couple of minutes, realize your rocket is not good, go back to vab and improve it, then rinse and repeat, that is fun when you are a beginner. But when you are planning a return mission to jool, having a bad last stage means hours wasted, that is not fun.

One idea I had is that the dv/twr readouts could be gained when updating some facility, like the R&D building. Now we have the barn back, on level 0 there's no readouts, upgrading to lvl 1 gives you a simple reading, and lvl2 gives you a full stage by stage information.

[FlowerChild]

This position doesn't hold water for me (not to single you out, I've heard it from others). It implies that the only way missions can fail is not enough fuel or thrust, and that a dV/TWR calculator somehow tells you how to build an efficient ship.

Not really, no. It implies that's *one* of the ways that a mission can fail, and that I'd rather have more such failure states in my game rather than less.

As for telling you how to build an efficient ship, no again. What it eliminates for me is the in-flight testing required to determine whether design A is better or worse than design B, and I like that in-flight testing aspect.

This kind of situation is fun when you are trying to get into orbit, you spend a couple of minutes, realize your rocket is not good, go back to vab and improve it, then rinse and repeat, that is fun when you are a beginner. But when you are planning a return mission to jool, having a bad last stage means hours wasted, that is not fun.

I think it is and I'm far from being a beginner.

Maybe I then change my plan to explore some of the moons of Jool instead of returning. Maybe I dispatch a rescue or resupply ship. Maybe I start getting creative with trying to use gravitational assists to get back home. Maybe Jeb gets out of his ship and plunges into Jool's atmosphere as one last hoorah because he knows he's ultimately doomed while I hum a few bars of "Danny Boy".

Failure states basically create additional gameplay scenarios for me that I may never have encountered otherwise, and that helps to keep things interesting. I don't think I've ever been so committed to a single launch plan that I simply could not accept it failing or being changed. I think the only time where I'd consider the time "wasted" is if I didn't enjoy the process of designing and flying the rocket in the first place, and then I'd be asking why I was playing the game at all.

I'd also add that playing without that information is not a life sentence to constantly run out of fuel. With time you become better at guestimating what you need to get where, and I know that overengineering my designs to ensure I don't run out of fuel has become standard practice for me. The only place where I still run into trouble is pulling into orbit around Moho, but otherwise I could probably get anywhere in the Kerbol system on the first try (at least if I have access to a series of launch vehicles I've built up incrementally over the course of a game).

Edited January 31, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

It doesn't necessarily tel you if one is better than another, it gives you information. It's ultimately the pilot (AKA you) that does something with the design,. and if you decide it's better than it is.

[Astrofox]

REENTRY HEAT? Well, there go my plans for aerobraking. Also, will you please change how the building destruction works, because I feel as if driving a massive object into the side of a building to destroy it seems a bit funny but highly unrealistic in a way. Danny2462 could technically do this by building a massive tank and going on a Kerbal slaying Rampage whilst at it (come to think of it, I might suggest it as a video idea for him). I love the Development of the game, but I also hope that this release is not rushed out.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not really, no. It implies that's *one* of the ways that a mission can fail, and that I'd rather have more such failure states in my game rather than less.

When you say "*knowing* that a mission will succeed" that implies that once that task is done, the mission's outcome is known to be successful. Calculators don't tell you that a mission will succeed, they only tell you that success is possible.

While I agree that it is important to have failure modes that are fun and challenging, I find the "gotcha" of not enough dV or thrust to not be a satisfying one. It's not as easily rectified as a flubbed docking or landing, where a player could make repetition painless if they choose using quicksaves; the player often has to redo the mission from the start, possibly losing accomplishments already done successfully in the current attempt. It's like those old adventure games where failing to do one particular action at the beginning of the game causes the player to fail irrevocably late in the game.

As for telling you how to build an efficient ship, no again. What it eliminates for me is the in-flight testing required to determine whether design A is better or worse than design B, and I like that in-flight testing aspect.

That's certainly a valid playstyle, and I respect that testing is an enjoyable part of the game for you. For me, testing is enjoyable but less so than "real" missions, and even using a calculator mod I still run way more tests than real missions. Calculators simply allow me to spend more time doing the things I like best.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Red Iron Crown
Now with the correct number of pronouns.

[FlowerChild]

When you say "*knowing* that a mission will succeed" that implies that once that task is done, the mission's outcome is known to be successful. Calculators don't tell you that a mission will succeed, they only tell you that success is possible.

Perhaps a poor choice of words there in trying to convey my point of view then, as yes, you are correct that a dV calculator is no guarantee, but does reduce the overall risk level. I don't think we disagree on that point.

That's certainly a valid playstyle, and I respect that testing is an enjoyable part of the game for you. For me, testing is enjoyable but less so than "real" missions, and even using a calculator mod I still run way more tests than real missions. Calculators simply allow me to spend more time doing the things I like best.

Well, keep in mind I'm no way arguing against your playstyle (nor do I feel you are arguing against mine). I was only responding to a comment here where someone mentioned that everyone would agree about the inclusion of deltaV display in stock as being a good thing, and raising my hand in saying I was an exception there, and that I understand Squad's design reasoning and hesitation in including one.

Heck, I'm an experienced enough modder that I could probably get rid of it the same day it's released, so I really have no personal stake in the issue one way or another. Simply making the point that not all of us are so keen on it and that it shouldn't be taken for granted that it's something absolutely everyone wants.

[CaptainKipard]

??

Adding a Dv/TWR readout doesn't change the "way" it's done at all. I could find out for myself without mods and my gameplay style would hardly change. However, it would be much easier to have an in-game readout. Perhaps balance it to be a certain accuracy at Tier 2, and more accurate at Tier 3?

Besides, the Kerbal way is more like build-test-fly-repeat, which isn't that far off from some human ways (see Goddard).

I wonder how people would conduct these conversations if instead of Kerbals we just had Humans. I get a feeling like all they really do is make people play differently for no reason other than their presence.

[FlowerChild]

I wonder how people would conduct these conversations if instead of Kerbals we just had Humans. I get a feeling like all they really do is make people play differently for no reason other than their presence.

Personally, I don't really care whether I'm dealing with little green men or big beige ones, and that's never entered into any of my arguments about this. To me, it's all about what makes for a more entertaining experience, and I'm really not at all concerned with any thematic considerations that people may have with regards to it. IMO, if good gameplay conflicts with thematic elements, well then...change the thematic elements.

Heck, I've always maintained that the whole "but starting manned because...Kerbals" was a non argument because it doesn't make for better gameplay.

Edited January 31, 2015 by FlowerChild

[KevinTMC]

I've been playing a challenge based on FlowerChild's mod, and decided to do without Kerbal Engineer for the sake of some bonus points. I'm glad I did...but I'm still torn on the issue of making delta-v readouts stock. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) Delta-v readouts must not be made available in the early stages of career. If players get used to using it as a crutch too early on, they'll experiment too little and learn too little and have too little adventure. (And at the very very beginning it might just add confusion anyhow.)

2) Later on, as missions get longer and more complicated and the stakes get higher, I'd imagine most players will tend to lean more on delta-v numbers--if they're available--and/or on reverting. I believe that if it were up to FlowerChild, both of these would be kept/taken out...and that might well make the game more fun for more people. But I don't think reverts are likely to ever go away entirely; nor do I think it likely that more than a small minority of players will choose to turn them off in the difficulty settings. My thought process, then, is this: if reverts aren't going anywhere, and if overuse of reverts is worse than overreliance on Kerbal Engineer (as I believe it is), and if doing without the latter makes abuse of the the former more likely (as I believe it does), then making delta-v readouts stock would be the lesser evil.

3) From the experience of the challenge, one thing I've learned is that a good way to strike a balance between the extremes of pure guesswork and obsessive number-watching is to make the player figure it all out by hand. I'm pretty happy with the mix of planning vs. informed guesswork vs. winging it that's resulted in my game from that. Now, as geeky as KSP can get, I'm sure it's still unrealistic to expect the average player (as opposed to confessed weirdos like myself) to do anything like calculating delta-v by hand. But perhaps making these calculations cost the player in some other way would act as a salutary restraint?

[Red Iron Crown]

Delta-v readouts must not be made available in the early stages of career. If players get used to using it as a crutch too early on, they'll experiment too little and learn too little and have too little adventure. (And at the very very beginning it might just add confusion anyhow.)

I can only speak for myself, but my experience when starting to use a dV calculator was exactly the opposite. I experimented with design more, because I had real feedback about the rocket's capabilities without being blurred behind slow repetition of test flights with my modest piloting skills, and I think a player would learn faster because the readout tells them that Delta-V is a thing that is important and shows them when their designs are moving in a more capable direction. As for confusion I don't really see it as much more confusing than listing the specific impulse ratings of the engines, something already done in game.

[Superfluous J]

1) Delta-v readouts must not be made available in the early stages of career. If players get used to using it as a crutch too early on, they'll experiment too little and learn too little and have too little adventure. (And at the very very beginning it might just add confusion anyhow.)

I agree with RIC on this one wholeheartedly. I got a more intuitive understanding of how fuel, staging, and different rocket engines work with a few hours in the VAB with KER than I got from a month or more of actually trying to build rockets and "This won't make it, add moar boosters."

Now, I just know about what will work and use KER to not only make sure but also to shave down on fuel use so I can get more done in a launch. Whereas you derive joy from being spontaneous and just seeing (which is a totally valid way to play, don't get me wrong) and others from calculating themselves (which is also totally valid) I personally like to see exactly how much I can do with the lowest cost (which doesn't always mean least fuel or lowest dV, but those are involved) and then see if I can actually do it. There's not much difference between not knowing if you can take that ship to Laythe at all, or if you can take that ship to Laythe with your paper-thin margins. Except in the second case you actually know it's POSSIBLE.

But I do agree with you that the data should not be available to new players right away unless they actively search for it, and there should be a "This may not help you until you've played around a bit, unless you actually ARE a rocket scientist" warning.

[aside]I had a set of launchers that I would *love* to have access to today, so see how horrible they were. I have some pictures. Maybe I should try to recreate them.[/aside]

[KevinTMC]

Those are good points. It may be that I'm not thinking far enough back, to when I was brand new (2012! gosh, time flies) and really, truly, comprehensively didn't know what I was doing.

Though I would think the best thing for a user in that situation would be improved tutorials, perhaps paired with a few educational sample craft. Then, once they've learned a few principles and techniques that way, and played around some, consider introducing (probably via VAB/SPH upgrades) more data and tools.

(In the EDU version, those tools would of course be preceded by teaching the player to do the calculations by hand...and heck, I'd have loved that in the standard version of the game too, but that's probably just me.)

[TopBoom]

In reference to Romfarer's request for suggestions to include in the "Engineer's Report". I think it would be helpful if there were information related to how long before electric charge is depleted while in the shadow of an object, also "RCS Build Aid" is a fantastic mod by m4v which I think needs to be incorporated into stock game.

[Alshain]

I can only speak for myself, but my experience when starting to use a dV calculator was exactly the opposite. I experimented with design more, because I had real feedback about the rocket's capabilities without being blurred behind slow repetition of test flights with my modest piloting skills, and I think a player would learn faster because the readout tells them that Delta-V is a thing that is important and shows them when their designs are moving in a more capable direction. As for confusion I don't really see it as much more confusing than listing the specific impulse ratings of the engines, something already done in game.

100% agree. Prior to using a dV calculator, I just overbuilt the rockets because it was easier than all the test flights. Now I try to conserve using the dV calculator and that means more experimentation trying to get the dV just right.

Absolutely right.

In real life, rockets are being designed by hundreds of professionals, may even be thousands.

Even in real life, the people designing those rockets use calculators and computer simulations.

---End of comment on quotes---

There is not a rocket ever launched (except those powered by water and launched from my back yard) where people didn't run delta V calculations prior to the launch so why should we? I suppose you could pen and paper (and slide rule) it like they did in the early days of NASA but really I don't think that would add anything of value to the game. There is no reason to limit those numbers to any upgrade.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

After two+ years playing this game, the last thing I want to do is "build, test, repeat" just to figure out how much delta-V my craft has. It's boring gameplay and contributes to the grind induced by the cookie-cutter career mode mechanics. Sure, I test my craft, but when I know the delta-V (something you simply don't design a rocket without knowing IRL) I know whether it can get to where I intend it to go, which leaves my free to find and fix other failures. Flying without knowing the delta-V of your craft is like driving from New York to Mexico City without a gas gauge, it involves lots of unexpected stops and waiting, which is terrible.

[Hcube]

Re-entry heat ? AMAZING ! (i don't like aerobraking that much anyway). But the thing i want the most : FAIRINGS ! i have seen no posts about vertical fairings to protect a rocket's payload ! opening the cargo bays of a shuttle is cool, but blasting away a fairing is awesome.

Anyway, i guess fairings are in order if you plan to do a atmospheric revamp.

I also wish we will get some useful (essential) data in the VAB (on the engineer's report maybe ?) such as TWR of each stage, deltaV and whatnot... I know there are mods for this but those are really essential (imho) should be stock.

Reeeally looking forward to 1.0 (im 100% you guys at squad won't mess it up)

[bdito]

Re-entry heat ? AMAZING ! (i don't like aerobraking that much anyway). But the thing i want the most : FAIRINGS ! i have seen no posts about vertical fairings to protect a rocket's payload ! opening the cargo bays of a shuttle is cool, but blasting away a fairing is awesome.

Anyway, i guess fairings are in order if you plan to do a atmospheric revamp.

I also wish we will get some useful (essential) data in the VAB (on the engineer's report maybe ?) such as TWR of each stage, deltaV and whatnot... I know there are mods for this but those are really essential (imho) should be stock.

Reeeally looking forward to 1.0 (im 100% you guys at squad won't mess it up)

They've said fairings are on the way. We don't fully know what the engineers report will hold but they've never said anything about TWR or deltaV. I assume we'll still need Kerbal Engineer for that.