Sky_walker

Scaling planets up implies also adding a realistic atmosphere - so you won't have to push your way through this soup that we have now. Hence I don't think that the scale of planets got anything to deal with difficulty settings.

You see - this discussion about realism will teach you something If KSP would be more realistic - you'd know this from the game itself. What he build is a Big Dumb Booster-type launch vehicle. May or may not - depends on shielding and Kerbals resistance to radiation Nukes are a problem in their current state because it leads people to tons of ridiculous misconceptions about the nuclear engines. What can be done - I'll leave it to the devs, but really dozens of ideas were posted in Suggestions forum, so they got more than enough options to pick from. Psychological problems are less of a problem in 21st century for humans than they were in 20th. I don't think that there is any problem with that at all that KSP would have to simulate. Just assume that Kerbals got a computer games on their machines and they love playing them - bang, no problem. Noone in this entire topic asked for a random failures. Noone on this forum asked for a total realism - I thought I pointed that out clear enough on a first page of this lengthy topic. 5) The delta-V requirements and balance IS NOT THE SAME as it would be in realistic sizes of planets. That's why we want it to be changed. 6) Plenty of suggestions how to actually make it happen and at the same time: ADD gameplay fun value to the game. Just look up suggestions forum. Another one of them popped just few days ago. 7) Agreed, though I wouldn't mind it as an option 9) Falcon Heavy is suppose to use something "sort-of" asparagus staging. 11) They can push plane to the sub-orbital flight going around nearly an entire Kerbin. Which is bad enough on it's own, but to make it worse - one of the best SSTO launch vehicles are these combining turbojets with rockets or nikes - which is IMHO ridiculous. Something needs to be done with Turbojets. And that said - I'm not against adding ramjets or scramjets if only they behave nicely and proper aerodynamics model is implemented to limit their usability. 15) It is negligible. SoI of E-class asteroid would be tiny, but more importantly - some of the heavier spaceships would affect an orbit of such asteroid in a visible way if you'd really want to model it realistically. AFAIK they're not. At least - on last QA on reddit few weeks ago they told that they are not. Or did I misread something? Everyone do. In KSP return vehicle is what you design it to be. But there's absolutely no reason not to return just a simple lander can with a chute. See: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Science#Recovering_the_results_while_leaving_the_equipment:_Taking_and_Storing_Data I know, I know - it's not obvious that you can recover data this way and the game doesn't do anything to explain it - which is something I explained/complained about here in this thread.

This should help you to answer the question:

Coruscant isn't one either. It's fully dependent on other planets - just like Honk Kong is. I thought it's obvious that the ecosystem wasn't a concern for people covering Honk Kong island with a buildings. Matter of technology and what you define as "seriously". Though As far as I remember - in lore it's quite clear that the living conditions on Coruscant were worse than these on other, "green" planets. And so it did, but obviously - just like with Honk Kong - there were economical and political reasons to concentrate so much concrete and steel in once place A capital planet of an entire galaxy - looks like a reason good enough on it's own. It also doesn't mean that there absolutely couldn't be anything to drive them doing so - which is what you assume even despite of quite overwhelming proofs to the opposite. So there are easier solutions to make people live away from large cities. Cheaper land, better availability of food, water, higher quality of air, lower ambient noise levels, and so on, and so on... yet here now on the earth population of large cities is constantly increasing, not decreasing. Wrong assumption. My nickname got nothing to deal with Star Wars. It's a poor translation of paraphrase from my native language - made it back in a day when still learning English, and got stuck with it. I know very well it's not real and tons of stuff in it don't make any sense - but this one particular part actually does make sense. It'd also escape more quickly than you can refill it

I thought it was confirmed NOT to be in 0.25. I don't have any hope to see it in 0.25. If anything - 0.26. It's such a huge change that it might take them a whole patch cycle to get it into the game. Hehe, funny, cause I thought exact opposite - that one of these features to come in 0.25 might be a game-over to be enabled in difficulty settings. I think that the release of 0.24 proven beyond shadow of doubt that omitting it from the game was a mistake.

One of these cases when game punishes you for playing it in a realistic way.

It's obviously because they're looking for a new biome to grab a soil sample from. Though KSP itself went to the great lengths trying to make that part as <s>hard</s> tedious as possible.

Good point about them, though it's setup this way due to the game limitations (you cannot simply turn on the engine for XXXX seconds and compress time). Nukes are setup the way they are cause it was the quickest way to do it.

If so, then please - read it again, cause it looks like you simply read something that I never wrote. I never said that you need to nor that you should. You don't do a gravity turn. It's one of the misconceptions that regex mentioned - one of the things that "KSP teaches wrong". What you are talking about is NOT a gravity turn. Fact that you do not fly straight up all the way doesn't mean that you make a gravity turn. It just means you make a turn, period. No. It doesn't. Mods allow that. But the game itself - stock - does not.

And here I'd like to remind that complexity is a direct function of how well does the game explain itself to the user.

It will work perfectly fine. Realism got nothing to deal with whatever trial and error works or not. Realistic consequences of a failure - like a realistic balance of income and expenses real space agencies have - might change that, but that still depends on an implementation details (i.e. currently we have a system in which bankruptcy is impossible, so there is nothing there to limit trial and error, no matter the amount of errors - your decisions don't really matter, you still will have cash to work with).

That's because our large cities still have space to grow wide instead of tall. Look at the Honk Kong instead - it pretty much paved all of the arable land and inhibited natural biosfere on it's own island. Now just up-scale it to the size of empire spanning thousands of planets and you end up with Coruscant. That feasibility is directly proportional to the technology. Honk-Kong would not be feasible in first century B.C. even if they could build skyscrapers. As you put it - it'd be "just bonkers economically".

lol You got me! It should be 10km of course I edited post to correct it.

For those people claiming that the game is too difficult for a new players: Keep in mind that majority of learning curve comes from some illogical choices made by the developers and lack of proper information given to the player. For me learning the game was a breeze once I found a wiki that explains oddities this game has. Like massless parts, lack of n-body physics, nose cones that are nothing more than a crippling parts, lack of any in-game comparison of the components (especially important for engines), lack of in-game Delta V screen or any other basic information (eg. GUI never tells you what's the aerodynamic pressure (so you know if you ascend too fast or too slow) and G-force gauge is so tiny and badly scaled that you can't get anything useful out of it). New players really struggle to get anywhere because of all the oddities that KSP has (eg. that counting on a gravity turn is an idiotic thing to do - instead you should ascend till ~10km and then make 45 degree turn - game NEVER bothers to tell you that). In comparison getting a basic understanding of how orbital mechanic work with current navigation nodes is a breeze! (I did try KSP over a year ago - got discouraged by random guesswork after getting into the orbit - when I played it with the nav nodes - I instantly decided to purchase the game for myself - again an example that explaining stuff to the player makes an enormous difference) Same with docking - docking wouldn't be even nearly as much of a problem as it is now if we'd have a proper docking camera with proper data displays (eg. velocity on XYZ axis in comparison to the target) - for me it's still MORE difficult to dock when I use "set target as" option on a docking port than doing it manually by observing the craft and moving the camera around - I automatically switch my focus the the gui which gives you some info, but there's just so many gaps between what I can seen and the info I need for successful docking that I usually end up either crashing or spinning off course. KSP does relatively little to explain anything - hoping that players will "figure it out" (which ends with: read the forum / wiki / watch youtube or in most of the cases: RAGE QUIT) - and at the same time it does A LOT to add crapton of it's own oddities that are NOWHERE to be explained in the game itself. You don't micro-manage anything. You just load food like you load fuel - enough to accomplish the mission (again: GUI - game needs to explain stuff to the player, stop forcing that stupid guesswork!). Noone is asking for a "feed Jeb" option.

... someone should make a mod to calculate that automatically.

Wait... what? It makes no sense. How exactly did you come up with a conclusion that tycoon-game player will not enjoy aerodynamics or re-entry heating? If anything - it'll be exactly the opposite. I'm a tycoon player myself (or at least - want to be with my self-imposed rules, cause BS going on when game is flooding you with money is totally crippling in trying to do that) and having nose cones that do nothing but cripple your designs along with lack of any penalty for improper reentry while you try to do your best to get it right is IMHO a huge problem with a game as it discourages people from doing a logically optimal designs. More realism == BETTER gameplay for tycoon players. NOT worse. And if 0.26 in deed will bring something to improve the situation than I'm sure anyone wanting to manage his own space program will be happy to see that logic finally starts working with KSP.

The same could be said about the Earth. Why people live in London which requires food and water to be brought not only from entire Great Britain but also Europe and parts of Africa while you could just as well move people to the Ukraine / Kazakhstan / central asia where rich Chernozem provides more than enough food to sustain population? Star Wars Coruscant is just up-scaled capital city. Only that one serves thousands of planets instead of a single country. Hence the size. You mean just like Mars and Europa? Surely desert and ice planets/moons cannot exist... no way... BTW: No planet in Star Wars is purely a single-environment. Coruscant is no exception to that - in fiction it got an ice caps on poles, and different temperatures on different latitudes.

Yes. But the engine doesn't. So engine itself does have an infinite TWR. That's a very good point. It weights almost a tonne and yet - remains massless. I have no idea what's the logic behind it. There is plenty of components lighter than that which do have mass. Yes we do, and if anyone would like to discuss modding - they'd post in an appropriate forum.

Thanks a lot for direct info Porkjet

Anyone mind to post a summary from that ^ ? I refuse wasting* an hour for something that probably can be cut to few positions on a bulleted list. >_> * beware subjective opinion

Yes, it does have "enough gravity" (whatever that means) for Rosetta to orbit the comet. However station-keeping burns will happen regardless - satellites orbiting earth need to perform them, and we're talking here about orbiting an object that constantly ejects material into space.

Easy ≠Good. Besides - as said: planet size affects by far more aspects of the game than just how long it takes to ascend/descend. So far current lack of realism got a negative effect on fantasy and game experience to a substantial number of players. I can't imagine how making nose cones actually beneficial to the rocket instead of just a dead weight, along with implementing expected effects on orbital reentry, additional launch pads in different latitudes, fixing unreasonably overpowered air-breathing engines, or adding information about delta-V would have a negative impact on gameplay experience for anyone but people intentionally exploiting flaws in the game.... well, let's face it - they'd do it anyway even with the most realistic physics devs can implement - just in a different way. Cause you see - humans are truly wonderful creatures - they adapt. And just like we had to spend days adapting to the oddities of KSP away from logic and reason - they'd have to adapt to do their weird whackjobs in more realistic environment.

Kerbodyne KR-2L Advanced Engine + small XL fuel tank + probe core = deadly reentry... during ascend!

OK, fair enough. Somehow I always though that KSP calculates full physics for objects, not just a simplified point body. In that case - in deed adding n-body physics shouldn't be any problem performance-wise.

Noone is pushing for a total realism. It's pretty much impossible to achieve anyway. Though even if it would - it doesn't matter. Noone wants it. You are building a topic out of an assumption that someone thinks something. So far I haven't seen anyone postulating for a total realism. If you did - please, talk to that person directly instead of addressing some generic, unspecified group of people that might or might not exist. Thank you.