[Realism in KSP]

If you go back to the first post I've made in this thread, it starts with what do we talk about when we talk about realism. And if you check the posts I've been writing today, they are an answer to the idea that KSP should be accurate enough to pretty much replace text books at universities.

OK, since no one at all is suggesting this, there is no need to ever discuss it. It's not even on the table.

[Realism in KSP]

Regarding flight vs rockets, I have yet to do more than noodle around with any aircraft. I've spent years in ww1/ww2 flight sims (along with a little real flight time), and it's hard to fly with a keyboard, and even harder with an aircraft made out of what are in effect legos. Honestly, I'd not be surprised if a plane I built in 2 minutes disintegrated on takeoff, it's amazing that any don't, frankly.

[Has the ejection force from radial decouplers been nerfed?]

Wow, I have had so many kerbaltastic failures do to that so far it's not even funny.

[Realism in KSP]

Peace tater; we have been complaining about how some of the not-fond-of-realism crowd have been fond of using strawman arguments to dismiss all realistic arguments; we shouldn't do the same to them.

True, but my real point is that I can't see we actually have an argument. It was meant to be funny since I doubt any actually disagree (I edited to make this clear)

So I don't actually think that they want the "soup" worse, and almost anything would be more, rather than less realistic. I also don't think they want reentry added by the devs to be intentionally less realistic than the current "nothing."

It's one of those funny arguments where there is nothing to really argue about except for things we ("realism" people) are not actually advocating for.

The scaling issue I'm not dogmatic about, I'll leave that to people who understand the game engine better than I do. All I have gathered is that in adding the stuff they seem to have already planned to add (atmosphere and reentry), they might need to tweak something, and I'd just assume whatever the tweaking is doesn't violate basic physics:)

[Realism in KSP]

I cautiously would like to play with re-entry heat, but real life spacecraft rely on advanced computer autopilots to handle the task for them.

The ground computers used for Mercury did about 0.01 Mflops. Looks like my phone does 25Gflops.

Gemini was the first US spacecraft with an onboard computer.

BTW, the navball, map mode, ARE advanced computer autopilots. The stock game experience gives the player a lot of information, actually. (but, yeah, it might be nice to splashdown within 5km of a target like Mercury could do).

[Realism in KSP]

I don't think there is a lot to "unlearn" from "Hey, see that? Well, planets are a lot less dense" or "See the amount of delta-v required? Well, in Earth, you need twice that amount".

Now, if you want the ultimate, accurate, teaching textbook replacer, that's Orbiter. Which doesn't have the option to build rockets but

A) We aren't talking about teaching to build rockets

Rocket building in KSP is unrealistic

And the issue is, I don't KSP is, nor should, be a teaching tool designed to teach College students. It is a tool to encourage them to look for related careers when considering what career to follow. As an analogy, you aren't going to learn architecture or engineering by playing with legos. But playing with legos might make you consider a creative career of some sort.

So you want Isp to stay wrong? You want reentry to remain a placeholder? The atmosphere to be a placeholder?

The main issues:

1. fix Isp definition.

2. When the admitted placeholder atmosphere is fixed, should it be fixed with something the same as it is now, less realistic than the one now, or more realistic. Devs apparently mean to change it. Realism people want it to be better (more realistic) than the current atmosphere... the anti crowd wants it worse? The same? (tongue firmly in cheek)

3. Reentry to matter (the game descriptions clearly suggests it should matter, the landers say they cannot reenter, explicitly). Devs apparently want this done, too. So the realism people want it to be more realistic than zero damage now, and the anti-realism want what, exactly? Less realistic than the current "no effect?" Maybe reentering can still have no effect, but you get a "buff" for your next launch? (same tongue position )

So of the big three issues, one is a plain mistake that should be fixed, and 2 are things that are implicitly or explicitly things the devs mean to change. In that latter case, should the changes be more, or less relistic than the placeholders? If your answer is "more" then you are in fact for more realism.

[Realism in KSP]

Actually it has a pretty big impact on gameplay. A larger solar system means more delta-V to get places, which means larger transfer vehicles, which means larger launchers. Even a 2x Kerbin system wouldn't be drastic, though; you'd probably need another 1km/s to get to Eeloo or Moho.

I understand that, I meant in the grand scheme. A little extra delta v is no big deal, and not a gameplay changer, it just means you design slightly different rockets. I meant the way you play, and the overall feel, as well as the amount of player time it takes to play. You'd design slightly different rockets anyway, since an atmosphere and reentry will change ideal designs rather a lot. So you tack on a bigger booster. That's not a gameplay change, IMO (certainly no more than the default of removing the placeholder atmosphere will be).

[Realism in KSP]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think actual physics should be learned from a text book. Games, documentaries and other audiovisual media have a role in education, but they can't replace books. If you want to train an engineer or a physicist, that person will have to read. And will have to get the actual figures and physics laws from books.

I think the strength of games like KSP in education isn't in becoming a ludic replacement of text books, but in enticing children and teenagers in developing an interest in hard sciences. Kind of how you aren't going to properly learn history by playing the Age of Empires campaigns or Assasin's Creed, but you may get interested enough in history to study it in depth.

Realistic densities, planetary sizes and reentry means 70 minutes long reentry procedures. So, if we go the route of "actual physics whenever possible so children learn the right way" we end up with "kids don't want to spend 70 minutes reentring Kerbin, and have quited playing". That way, you don't teach them anything, and they don't get interested in the field.

I disagree entirely. There are certain things that you can learn better from experience, which is why entry level physics and astronomy classes have demonstrations, and/or labs. The non-intuitive nature of orbital rendezvous, for example is great to see for yourself (even if in a game). You might not learn history from the games you mention, but if they were done properly, you might actually learn something about why they used the tactics they used (Empire: Total War, for example could have done this, or virtually any age of sail game (all of which fail to model sailing outcomes accurately). Another example is ww2 flight sims. I was always a ww2 aircraft buff, but I honestly "didn't get it" intuitively until I had played good ww2 flight sims, particularly vs other people. Now when I read first hand accounts, I see them as I read, and actually understand (in an internalized way) exactly what they are talking about.

So I think a game like this is a fun tool. I'd have used this with kids at the campus observatory back in the day in a heartbeat (as long as I didn't have to unteach them things that the game got wrong).

[Realism in KSP]

What's the mun's SoI, too? You'd need to do a little scaling up across the board. Again, this has about zero impact on gameplay, as you'd be in compression anyway. The only time impact (player time) would really be those times when you are forced to be in physics time compression (4X your atmospheric travel time).

[Realism in KSP]

I don't think any of us in the 'realism" camp disagree at all, actually. The only rationale posted for any size increase had to do with balance once better atmospheric effects are in. A few were testing a slightly larger Kerbin.

[So.... What's with the resources?]

I think that edfred thinks that resources would somehow be required to do anything. Perhaps he thinks he'd have to mine like mine craft to build the VAB? The smelt iron ore and make raw materials for rockets? Within the scope of KSP, it would be slightly more specific than the fact that the air breathers currently in game "mine" oxidizer, and reaction mass from the atmosphere. You land a mining pod, attach it to a separator pod, and attach that to a fuel tank, and throw a solar panel or RTG on it. Tank is now kept full for your spaceflight needs (if there was the ability to construct a "launchpad" then any craft on it can be assumed to be refueled from that tank).

The gameplay plus is it creates a good reason to build a base on another planet/moon. If the base resource is water, for example, then polar regions will be preferred (some more complicated maneuvers required to keep the players challenged). If you don't think that's required… then you don't bother.

[So.... What's with the resources?]

This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Resource Allocation Manager and Collection Program.

The implementation of that would be awful.

I mean, if you want realistic, you might as well add a purchasing department that has to negotiate with part manufacturers. An HR department to deal with labor issues. Unions, strikes, etc...

Right. This post is very typical of knee-jerk, anti-"realism" posts. "If you don't model them actually squeezing food tubes into their mouths, it's not "realistic" anyway, so why worry about the physics of spaceflight at all!"

So I assume you think that the entire career game should also be scrapped, right? It involves a budget, research, reputation, and they are apparently adding the ability to follow/manage your astronauts. What is the point of a career game? The point is to create novel situations, and reasons to do things in game that you might not do in the sandbox mode---because such problems to solve are "fun." The current stock career is… lacking. The path is to land on as many planets as possible (you can easily blow through the entire tech tree never going past Kerbin or the Mun, actually), then perhaps to build weird stuff to do the same (which you might as well do in sandbox). It should have limited financial resources, but I've so far never been close to tight on money, always with an order of magnitude more than I need. I'm going to make a munar base, for example. Why? Because it will be fun. Does it have anything to do with playing the career mode? Not at all, there is no reason to build a base in career mode, or indeed period (except for fun---which could be sandbox). A reason might be if you could construct a facility that would allow for XXX kerbals to live (we'd need life support abstracted at least, like "Snacks"), at which point you can build a resupply facility (mine for fuel/oxidizer/etc). It's a reason to expand, and build bigger stuff, farther afield in the solar system without having to ship everything from the ground on Kermin (because a train of mindless resupply vessels is a "supply chain" that we then have to micro-manage (even to the point of docking everything).

People are not suggesting that you need to first mine on Kermin. This is for mining off-planet. A reason to expand into space past doing it "because."

I think it's a great idea once they get all the core features in the game.

[Time spent in space count towards science?]

That would still be somewhat abusable though; you could just leave the game running overnight.

Long term data acquisition still requires reduction. Better would to be to have science broken up. From my first forum post (edited and altered):

I'd divide science/research/tech tree in a different way.

Planetary Science

Spaceflight Science

Medical Science (assume the kerbs get life support at some point).

The Tech Tree would be completely revamped. Each tree component would have some or all types of points required to progress. So for example new lander pod tech would be say 60% Spaceflight Science Points, 20% Medical Science Points, and 20% Planetary Science Points (made up %s ). Most rockets engines might have just Spaceflight Science Points, for example.

Planetary Science (PS):

---Mapping (orbital flights)

---Surface samples

---Geology (seismic, etc)

---Atmospheric data

These would give points mostly towards making better instrumentation for doing this kind of science. The mapping, combined with landers could map out resource areas (assuming this is added). This is a benefit outside the tech tree (you know where to build a mining base).

Spaceflight Science (SS):

---Space measurement sensors (orbital, and at the different distances from Kermin/Kerbol, etc). The "environment" of space to make better stuff, in other words, these might give points to 2 or even all three branches of science).

---Returned craft (how they held up)

---Time in flight (just plain experience feedback from pilots (perhaps weighted by their stupidity?))

---Spaceflight milestones (orbiting worlds, first docking, etc).

This type of data gives points to virtually everything on the new tree.

Medical Science (MS):

---Time in flight (their medical condition over time, there can be experiments or station pods to test medical stuff)

---Returned craft feedback

---?

Medical is just "life support" issues. These points would go towards habitat tech, including any manned elements of spacecraft.

The tech tree might in fact be tied more closely to the contract idea. Spitballing, here...

You get a broad contract from Kerlington to develop a new command pod. It has parts. The first is a manned, orbital flight in a Mk1 pod of some set duration. It might have another requirement for a certain reentry (XXXX-XYYY m/s at 69,000m alt). Another might be to lift 5 tons to LKO or something, then deorbit it and land safely with parachutes. These are "SS" experiments, while the time in orbit is a MS experiment and the reentry is PS. You'd be doing the science to get THAT item by contract. At some point you get it provisionally to test. Obviously this could be tuned to tech tree groupings, not single items. Perhaps you pick a node to work on, and it lists the required points needed from each discipline of science, then you design missions to accomplish those goals, contract or not. In this case, the specific node might have additional requirements that look sorta like contracts. Meaning that you need PS points, but out of the 10 you need, 5 must be gathered at an altitude from 30-60km for this node.

Without mapping, perhaps the map view of a world shows little data. the Mun would be decent from telescopic observation, but Dres? Maybe a flat picture with only rough altitude information. So you can land your probe, but using the map to deorbit to a certain location… not helpful, it's seat of the pants flying.

[Time spent in space count towards science?]

Really the entire science/tech/credits(contracts) paradigm is pretty broken. As it is, you get science over time anyway if you are willing to click a bunch. Accept "space around…" contracts, report from space around object (leave stuff there), profit. I've been doing a career (stock), and I've landed some probes past Kerbin's SOI (did manned in my previous science career), but I am almost out of tech tree at this point, I'm having fun building a few stations ATM, and messing with a munar base concept.

Unless they do a complete overhaul of "science" in general, the ability to get it faster seems troublesome. Of course most of the tech dates to the 1960s and 70s anyway, even at the most advanced, so the notion of the tech tree is sorta odd anyway as implemented.

[So.... What's with the resources?]

I'd be perfectly happy to see this type of thing as a paid add-on (squads of apes gotta eat, too!) after they get their desired 1.0 version. Multiple resource types are fine, but Red Iron Crown is right, the mechanics should be straightforward. I'd suggest coding it with unlimited resources in a given area, but done such that the resource amount is an actual number, unless the tag is set to 1 or something, then it's infinite (default). The rest (mining per unit time, unfocused) is great.

Really the scope of such an add-on would be an early space-faring economy within the Kerbol system. Add the ability to construct fabrication facilities, etc, so that real colonization might be possible. Again, this would be a new, paid product, I'm not suggesting the devs work on that now. I'd certainly pay up.

[KSP in a AP Plysics classroom ideas?]

You could easily use KSP to demonstrate Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion - and then go a little further to explain how those same laws are used in Rocket Science.

Yeah, this is a good place to start.

I think instructionally, the non-intuitive nature of orbital maneuvering is also pretty cool (and so often done exactly wrong in popular culture ("point at it and burn straight for it" (though I was perfectly happy to see Sandra Bullock in yoga shorts, don't get me wrong)).

[Time spent in space count towards science?]

It could work perfectly well. Really, for engineering, time in space is useful to improve habitat designs, etc. The trick would be to scale it so that the science points come at a reasonable rate. The idea of putting time compression on is dumb, why bother with a career then? Just play sandbox.

Also, Kerbals could have lifespans in the program (assuming at some point they matter). So you'd have your favorite guys retire or something. In addition, if there are some fixed, annual costs associated with a program, gratuitous time warp could be a bad thing… It's just a matter of campaign game design choices.

[So.... What's with the resources?]

Yeah, that was sort of my point. It creates the possibility of a more open-ended system. Regarding "scope," it is certainly good fodder for a "Final Frontier" add-on (paid) to KSP, that adds asteroid mining, etc.

[Advanced EVA]

That or a "grabber" EVA unit that borrows the tech used for the larger grabber.

[Ever have a Kerbal just stand there, dazed?]

If it happens again, try knocking him over with the rover or another kerbal. Sometimes it resets a stuck kerbal when he automatically stands up again.

It was the first thing I did, actually, maybe I didn't hit him hard enough (when I circled around to put the rover near him to see if I could board, I braked insufficiently hard, picture above ).

[So.... What's with the resources?]

Within the scope of a space program, at least from my interaction with guys who do this sort of thing for a living, the principal resource concerns are Oxygen, Hydrogen, and stuff like lunar regolith (either as shielding, or even concrete). The first two are both oxidizer/fuel and life support. Unless they add construction, the latter is not really required.

From a game standpoint, you don't require anyone to mine at all, since they have everything needed on Kermin. It could be an option on the Mun, though.

[Ever have a Kerbal just stand there, dazed?]

Yep, edited the save and it worked out fine.

[Stunned a Kerbal somehow.]

Worked! Woot, Aldzer is saved!

[Stunned a Kerbal somehow.]

Thanks, giving it a try! Will report back.

[Ever have a Kerbal just stand there, dazed?]

Made a copy of the above in support.