Sky_walker

Nothing in that change is save-breaking, re-writing part is ~5 minutes, including testing, balancing might be a concern, though very limited - current mods proved that everything works fine without any changes to the game balance. If anything - stock spacecraft might require some adjustments, though not all of them. Some of the existing rockets you have might require some readjusting to reach the orbit, but we already went through that with 0.24 release - and somehow world didn't collapse. They become aware of that through learning the game, reading forums, reading wiki, etc. Majority of KSP learning curve doesn't come from the orbital mechanics, or anything like that - it comes from all of the quirks that the game has and all of the counter-intuitive stuff implemented in it along with complete lack of explanation or information in the game for why things work the way they do. Fix that and you'll open up for much broader customer base while at the same time increasing realism. Well then - I invite you to reddit or the Science sub-forum. Tons of people you call "fool" out there. When I first posted a quote in my signature on this forum - I almost got eaten by overzealous KSP fans defending the realism in a game.

That bug where you simply spawned huge spacecraft on a launch pad, reclaimed it, and got paid additional cash still works? If so - then do that. Besides - it's not like money matters in KSP. You cannot go bankrupt. So just take all contracts, build spacecraft for all your money, put it on a launch pad, go back to the space center, cancel all of the contracts, go back to the launch pad and reclaim your craft. Bang! You're rich.

Because this. And if you want to know how the whole discussion begun - well, it started with some players voicing their concerns and frustrations over the game, then we had this post listing possible scenarios of improving the KSP and after that we got derailed to a separate thread which eventually got closed because of the personal attacks. Because people decided that the discussion cannot be abandoned just like that - I_Killed_Jeb started a new topic, this one, in which everyone can present their own opinion on the possible advantages and disadvantages of the realism in KSP - which was a huge topic near the end of previous thread. Some people think realism is pure evil, even in as simple form as having basic maths going behind the screen correct, other people, including me, disagree with them. Most of the new players starting the game won't even know how the thing works just like they don't know how it works in a current implementation. Remaining part will know what to expect and will get that. After some time - everyone will learn how engines behave and... well... fly like they do now. Only instead of learning some complete nonsense - they'll learn what Isp actually is and how rockets actually behave. It's basically a win-win. Only side loosing on a proper calculations of Isp are veteran players who are afraid of change.

It's more educational because you're calling it for what it is instead of straight on misinforming players that Isp affects fuel consumption. Fair enough. Though it wasn't meant to be demanding tone but rather informing about possible outcomes from current troubled situation.

Yea, I know Shameless disregard to nomenclature. I just kept it within KSP naming convention so that folks here would know what's going on But now that you are on it:

Again: Why would people HAVE to do maths? Just show them the info they need to know right there, on a screen. I know that KSP developers have an allergy to informing players about... well... anything that requires them to show numbers, but this can be illustrated with a simple red/orange/green light for Sea-level thrust and space-level thrust - is it enough, barely enough, or not enough. You are making up an imaginary problem that doesn't really exist. People have been building rockets with a proper Isp calculations using the mods for a long while and it works just fine - as far as I know none of the problems you mention are came out to be nearly as tragic as you try to paint them if they occurred at all. It's not even remotely close to how much of a problem is running out of fuel in a middle of a mission because one of a devs decided that a Delta-V display is taking away the magic >_> You do realize that you are saying that in a game that doesn't have Delta-V display because, let me quote: Devs should either fix the thing or re-name it to "efficiency" /whatever similar so that it wouldn't take magic away. There's absolutely no reason to leave it broken other than the fact that some old-timers got used to the way it incorrectly works and now they cannot bear any thought about change. I know, I understand, some habits are difficult to get rid of after you played over a year in the same game, but... for the sake of simplicity and logic, plus all of the arguments I mentioned earlier - it should be corrected.

Show me one rocket that does it. Then we can agree that "it's not accurate to say that Isp in KSP is not a good analog of real-life Isp". As far as I'm concerned - it is inaccurate and it is teaching people a wrong thing about Isp. Change the thing to "efficiency" or something alike and noone will care. But if they use therm "Isp" - they should make it work like Isp works.

Thanks I added "ADDITIONAL" additional section right after you posted quote of my post.

Aerodynamics -Pros Intuitive rocket design will be good rocket design, unlike in a current implementation, where players are punished for building rockets that look like these from real world Nose cones will be beneficial, not punishing Shielded docking port will be beneficial in some designs, not inferior in every way to the unshielded one Building planes (inc. spaceplanes) will be easier and more intuitive (I'm yet to build successful airplane in stock aerodynamics, while I did it just fine in FAR) Game will hopefully start teaching people good things. For example that the best way to get in space is not by using stacks of turbojet engines and one small rocket on top of that -Cons Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits Some of the whackjobs won't work any more It'll require more work than it looks on a first glance from the devs. Not only they'll have to code in proper simulation, but we'll also need to have fairings in a stock game (including proper customizable inter-stage fairings) and all of the missing parts related to aerodynamics and structure. Re-entry Danger I moved it right under aerodynamics as for me - these two are linked. Proper aerodynamics = proper reentry dangers. This one is a change that makes least of a difference to the new players. -Pros Every new player expects reentry to be dangerous. Every new player tries to build a rockets that take that into account. Every new player is somewhat disappointed to find out that it's not the case. Players won't be punished for building realistic descend modules. -Cons Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits Some of the current reusable rockets will be useless with a proper reentry damage. Slight increase in difficulty - it should be migrated by user interface displaying warnings when flight path leads to potentially deadly atmospheric reentry (and highlight it when you are on a perfect reentry angle/speed combination) Universe Scale Mind you - I don't want game to up-scale into a fully realistic sizes. Just something that wouldn't lead to insane densities. -Pros More realistic ascend paths - no more forced turns at 10km, instead players will use proper gravity turns and see pretty much the same thing they can in transmissions from the real rocket launches "Going up" won't be nearly as huge part of a challenge as it is now - people will learn a proper thing about the space flight Kerbin (and, well, all the other planets) won't be a neutron star any more with it's insane density It'll trigger Kraken's bane near Mun and Minimus so we won't be experiencing bugs out there that we do now Atmosphere will behave in more natural way allowing for more accurate and easier aerodynamics simulation Which will also allow a proper "translation" of real-world rockets and engines to the KSP reality Game will finally be able to use close-to-real-world values for rocket engines which also adds to the educational value Combined with aerodynamics fix it'll give more-or-less the same DeltaV requirements to ascend into orbit as it is now -Cons Ascend might take slightly longer (depends on a scale) Flight between the planets and moons might take longer, though it's not really a problem as people run time compression on this one regardless It might require some additional work rebalancing the game (though this change should be combined with fixes to the aerodynamics, therefore overall delta-v requirement to ascent into orbit would remain similar) Isp -Pros You get the underlying maths right fixing an obvious issue with the code Isp will be Isp not just from name itself Added educational value to the game - aka. "KSP won't be teaching you wrong things" No need to make any additional changes to the game balance, as game doesn't display any numbers to the player anyway, so for a new customers it won't make any difference on a negative side. You'll be able to use some of the real-world maths in KSP that you cannot now due to the incorrect implementation -Cons Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits, especially if they got every rocket calculated down to 1 m/s Life Support Before we get into details - it should be balanced in a way where doing a short orbital flights, or a trips to minimus and back shouldn't require any other supplies besides these in a Mk1 pod. Thinks like radiation should be IMHO out of question. -Pros Added depth to the game, shows some of the real-world challenges involved in a space flight Space stations and bases would finally make some sense Planets with natural resources - like oxygen on Laythe or ice on Eeloo would be more desireable adding another consideration (an advantage) to planning the missions You could build farms / villages, etc. - just look at the popularity of farmville! It'd create additional differentiation between unmanned and manned missions, giving players a reason to send unmanned missions - it'd really make a huge difference comparing to what we have now: a game that tries very much to convince everyone that if we can send Curiosity to Mars we could just as well send men out there tomorrow. It'll add a whole new level of depth and planning to the interplanetary missions rewarding players for thinking ahead and giving them a reason to send unmanned missions ahead of manned (to get an idea on how long it'll take to get there, perhaps also creating resource depots or planet-side bases). -Cons Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits It might be a similar thing to the solar panels and people forgetting to unfold them - only this time we'll have people forgetting to take food It'll be most likely the most item-intense addition to the game from all of these related to the realism. It will require adding window with an information about the spacecraft - how long will resources last? What's the current balance of consumption vs production? When we'll run out of food? - still though IMHO it's simpler and more user-friendly than displaying it as an additional types of fuel (even if in essense these are just a types of fuel, and few mods already implement it like that). ADDITIONAL Delta-V readouts Super-helpful for a new players who like to have their missions planned Decreases guesswork in a game (Having your Kerbal stranded on a Mun mission is annoying, but doesn't even come close to the frustration of getting that in the interplanetary flight) Adds to the educational value (people will not only learn what the delta-V is but also how amazingly helpful it can be!) Game will give people an option to have everything lined up perfectly instead of forcing everyone into guesswork and try-fail-try again mechanic even if they hate it (part of the reason why MechJeb and Kerbal Engineer are so popular that some people consider them mandatory to enjoy the game) Rescale the tech tree Make it impossible to research the whole tech tree on a Kerbin itself Split technologies in a logical way (so that we'd have more nodes to research) Move nuclear engines somewhere near the end of a tree (if not the the last spot, the final tech, as none of them have been used to propel spacecraft yet) Put unmanned cores earlier in a tree Make the whole tree at least somewhat similar to the real-world progress (though I think everyone agree that they still want to have manned pod available from the start) Additional launch sites Either researchable or unlockable by landing in the site Put them at the different latitudes, so that people would be able to learn what are the challenges involved Rebalance jet engines Make them work in at least somewhat realistic manner, so that we would have... No more rockets propelled by jets! Add ramjet/scramjet equivalent - engine that doesn't work below certain speed threshold Change nuclear engines Make them use only a liquid fuel. There is absolutely no need for oxidizer in nuclear engines. Add consequences to crashing them At a very least - huge drop in reputation (make it dependant on a biome? Eg. crash on badlands wouldn't make any difference at all?) In a best case - permanent pollution of the area in a certain radius of the crash side (instant death for any Kerbal trying to enter it), huge penalty in reputation, reputation cost for each LV-N launched (so players wouldn't be able to use them without positive reputation) And something to make life easier, though only remotely related to the realism (again - difficulty is directly proportional to how you explain the game to user) : Improve maneuver nodes Change color when a deadly reentry path&speed combination occurs Add something to inform people if they'll be touching atmosphere or not instead of forcing them to use the KSP wiki for that Precision...... Add option to reset the game speed back to 1x when 1 minute away from the node (gash, missing the node from jumpy time acceleration can be sooo frustrating) Ascend/Descend nodes should appear on your orbit around current planet if you have another planet selected as a target Improve the docking interface Add a docking camera, perhaps inspired by one in Soyuz - black&white with clear cross-hair and clear readings next to it. Change the docking GUI. Right now it makes docking more difficult, not easier. Data output should be clearly visible while docking, it cannot be clustered in a tiny spot of bottom-left corner of a screen. Don't be afraid to show numbers - they make stuff easier, not more difficult, if you know how to present them to the user in an accessible manner.

Thanks for pointing it out Fixed already.

Yes, devs are working on that. Only thing is that they need a robust solution as it's quite certain that modders will want to use native code base instead of Firespitter's once it's available.

I don't know why you seem to have a problem with that Ted. It's not like regex is asking for anything drastically increasing learning curve, or anything like that - simply: instead of teaching a wrong thing you'll start teaching a right thing while investing relatively little effort into it. It's basically a win-win situation as far as I see. To be honest I just thought it's an oversight or a temporary placeholder, as plenty are made in the games with early access, but seeing that you actually try to defend it as something that should stay in KSP is.... well... disturbing.

Some photoshop fun I had in a spare time... enjoy Link the whole sequence on a single image. To give perhaps a better sense of scale, here is my station build on that asteroid:

Great post TythosEternal. Pretty much my feelings on a whole case. But to be fair - from all three companies SpaceX is most likely to continue the project even despite of being turned down by NASA and CCDev. I'm quite sure that Musk would be ready to spend half of his fortune if it means proving the point* to NASA. * whatever that would be

If that makes governments spend more money on a space exploration - then please do come with more articles like that.

And here we go again... *facepalm* Really guys - this topic heads stright into one direction: flame war of android boys vs apple boys.

You either build a small ferry or a large spacecraft. And we all know how did the large reusable spacecraft ended - with the Space Shuttle. Though wait - even despite of being so huge and ready for unexpected - it still ended up burning itself in the atmosphere, no EVA airlock prevented it - even though, in a pure theory, it could at least allow them to know about the problem. EVA airlock doesn't help to fulfil any of the CCDev objectives - therefore none of the spacecrafts taking part in the competition got it. And if none of the CCDev spacecrafts have the airlock then this: is clearly false.

It's similar to the bug with game using incorrect g values for some of the calculations. Sure you might argue it's "working as intended" - never the less it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

And so the personal feelings got in a way of objective judgement. IMHO you should contact someone from SQUAD staff (like: an actual SQUAD employee).

European Southern Observatory VLT made the photograph of 67/P with the comet tail: http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/09/Rosetta_comet_observed_with_Very_Large_Telescope

Thank you for information GregroxMun, it's been really educative post.

Dream Chaser will have International Berthing Docking Mechanism designed by ESA, it is compatible with NDS, but it's not NDS. Dream Chaser won't have an airlock capable of handling EVA but space taxi doesn't need it. What for? It's designed to carry people to and from the ISS and potentially - other space stations. Not to perform EVA repairs, or anything alike. Besides - correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the CCDev spacecrafts got EVA capability.

That would be great (to have high gimbal engines) We'd actually be able to properly re-create space shuttle in KSP without resolving to some obscure & unreliable hacks.

Problem isn't in a construction time but rather that you don't need to leave Kerbin on order to research every single technology in the game.

Mods=/=community. You&your friends=/=community. Also note that majority of people who got everything working fine never visit the forum. So don't try to play number games, it's rather foolish to do that with no concrete numbers to speak of and looking on a case through your personal negative expirience.