tater

This is the first thing most geologists would do. Do it for science!

Yeah, I knew the keyboard shortcuts, but in this case the cursor moving past the next stage up with different settings changes my allowed from say 6 to 3, and it locks up.

Gotcha. I tend to establish a rough orbit, then make a node to move on to the target, usually with 1 burn if possible (for close stuff like Mun/Minmus). As a result, my burn times are invariably not listed, whereas tutorials I have seen always show them. So I have to make a dummy node, and work the engines once to have the nodes be useful.

Advice heard and taken. There had been complaints about "anti-realism crowd" so I was looking for a replacement. Invariants? I'm open to being called something funny myself, fire away. I think it is fair, though, to ask what the "anti" crowd would allow to be changed without having a problem with it. BTW, I'm not using the word because they disagree with me, I'm using it because they see to want the current physics to be written in stone, and unchanageable. If they were for changing the game to reactionless drives with no conservation of momentum, etc, I'd not be calling them fundamentalists for being in disagreement with me, as they'd be advocating a radical change from the current game model. The "more realism" crowd is suggesting that future changes aim in the direction of making things more realistic (in terms of physics, or expected outcomes), the anti-realism crowd seems to be saying that any changes are either bad, or must head in the direction of less realism. What do we KNOW? We know that the game is a WIP, and that elements WILL change. We know that, right? Can we all agree that;s a given, that there will be changes in the physics? If this is true, then why should changes not be in the direction of expected outcomes (realism) vs unexpected outcomes (fantasy)? A new player should expect that a rocket with something that looks like an LEM stuck on top should possibly undergo a catastrophic failure upon launch---since such payloads in RL have a fairing around them to avoid this. They quickly learn that it doesn't matter, and they can put a fire truck---sideways---on top, and it will launch just fine . ANyway, if things will change, and we'd all expect they will, why not in the direction of realism, particularly when bad outcomes (burning up, etc) could be turned off with the new difficultly sliders we've heard about. Also, in terms of launching ridiculous crafts, perhaps there could be a mode where the game starts with a Munar facility… then you could launch stuff made from girders, etc and it would not be jarring to see.

I get your point, but if you think that no physics can be tweaked without the sky falling… what else shall we call it? "0.24.2ers?" FWIW, it was meant in the spirit of fun. A buddy of mine used to walk around his room at the U, imitating a TV evangelist preaching about solving partial differential equations as a memorization tool. But it's a valid question as to whether some people are demanding zero physics change from the extant game or not---ever. If they are advocating NO changes, then they are at least consistent. If they are would not be against some changes, then we're just talking about what those changes should be, that is, the magnitude of any such changes. Any change will result in slightly different outcomes and design optimizations, that's a given. Read the part descriptions. Lander cans say they they are not designed for reentry, for example. Me hitting the atmosphere with the velocity of an extra-solar object with one and nothing bad happening shows that to be a lie, so I can only assume they mean to correct it . The same thing with the very existence of nosecones, something entirely unnecessary in the current, stock game. We can only assume it is meant to be fixed (we're not at 1.0 yet).

Most KSP rockets look absurd and don't break, though.

In THIS thread, the only size change suggested for stock has been the change in Kerbin from 9% of earth, to 14% of earth that I recall. Even this has been a sort of side suggestion that many are sticking to when the real foreground issues are aerodynamics, the isp issue, and reentry. If you cannot understand the difference between the physics, and the mechanisms of gameplay, there is nothing I can do. There is a new sailing gam win the works and they seem to have scaled up all the sailing speed for "gameplay" (they are doing MMO in a game that really requires time compression). So while the controls look the same as they otherwise would, the ships seem to move about 20 knots (they'd be doing great in a stiff quartering breeze at 1/2 that in real life). The gameplay is then faster, but the physics is entirely wrong (ships moving too fast). The paths the spacecraft take would certainly change to more realistic ones, and reentry would matter, but the UI experience would be unchanged. The UI experience of a real car is unchanged if you drive it into a wall, or stay on the road, the outcomes are not. This is where you cannot, as it is changes the physics, unlike LS, which can be abstracted. The whole point of the game is orbital mechanics and the interaction of spacecraft with said planets. That is the one part that should NOT be abstracted. BY that rationale why not make the solar system so small as to not require any time compression at all? Once there is TC, there is no reason not to have sort of realistic distances. Note that no one here has suggested the stock game get RSS, so we're assuming a mini system anyway. Making it a few % bigger if that fixes some physics issues (makes it so we're not interacting with neutron stars) is not a big deal. Again, are you a 0.24.2 fundamentalist? If they changed the size of Kerbin by 5% would you scream "heresy!"? a 50% increase is, though? What about 45%?

OK, you are right about changing the symmetry, but the game changes the symmetry without any input sometimes. Say you have 4X symmetry for reaction controls on the CM, and you are using 6X for boosters. If you move the mouse past the 4X stuff, the symmetry changes to 4 from 6, and it locks up. It might happen more with the big SRB because it's so bloody hard to place them properly as the pointer has to be on the booster (which then seems to center), as well as over the radial separator. I'm thinking it's reproducible this way (brush past a different symmetry while moving a large SRB).

When you set a maneuver node, do you ever see the burn time? Mine only shows up after I start the burn, so I cannot plan when to start.

Given that things like "deadly reentry" are perfect fodder for the new difficulty settings we have been told about, there is no reason not to have such stuff in stock as a setting. From a modding standpoint it's then something to tweak, instead of something to invent from whole cloth. I'm not up on modding this game (yet ), but in other games I've modded this can make it easier to "play nice" with other mods. I might be wrong in the case of Unity, I'm sure a modder here can say if this has any truth to it.

I like the concept, but jetwave is right, it needs to be combined with a total overhaul of the very concept of "science" as it relates to the tech tree.

Regarding contracts, I'm fine with a lot of them, but some are so bizarre the best way to do them is to hang the part off the side I guess and "stage" it at the right moment, even if not hooked to anything fuel wise, for example. Any contract that involves an actual test that doesn't seem unreasonable I try and do. Some are more trouble then they are worth. Regarding stations, that is indeed a decent reason for a little depot of fuel. I added a docking ring to my standard Mun rocket stage that I do the orbit insertion and capture with, break with it, then leave it in orbit with some fuel for this reason. I don't think of it as "a station," though. I reserve that for a manned station, though the science lab is a great actual station idea to nab all those biomes! See, it's cool when there is a reason to do stuff… I know my next build now.

Welcome! There are a lot of resources around for learning, but aside from the in-game tutorials (I recommend them), you can sort of just start messing around. I watched a couple youtube vids to get better at docking by Scott Manley that were awesome, when you start wanting to try that.

This is an absolutely valid argument, unlike many others. I agree completely. Part of managing a "space program" might be such boring, resupply runs. How about SOME automation as a better solution? You have these excess astronauts, after all, sitting around while Jeb does the heavy lifting. Want if the management would task a few of these for "resupply." In addition to the kerbs, you'd have to have a saved rocket type to assign them, then a frequency of delivery (once every other month or whatever). The resupply would appear docked at some point, then later it leaves and the guy is back in the pool, waiting for his next run. Such an abstraction could provide the source of stranded kerbals, etc. (yeah, adds random stuff, but it's NOT things the player is flying… there might be a small % chance (based on "stupidity") of a mission failure, which would then generate a "contract" for the player to rescue the ship/kerb. Win-win, gameplay wise.

Fine, as I said, who cares about the specifics when it can be abstracted a little? The only reason I thought radiation was cool is that it ADDS TO GAMEPLAY. Anythign that adds a new problem to be solved has that potential. That's worth looking at from a balance standpoint. "Do we want hostile environments in space or on worlds that will require specialized missions or parts?" If that looks to not be fun, then "no." No biggie. I'm not a fundamentalist, I do not think that the Book of Jebadiah, verse 0.24.2 is the holy word, inerrant and immutable. The career is pretty "meh" right now. The same craft, or slight variants will get you near anywhere. I saw the radiation suggestion and thought, "there's a cool way to make missions to certain worlds more difficult in a novel way." If they are immune to radiation, so be it. They presumably need to eat. Of course as of 0.24.2, they are effectively immortal anyway, they can only be killed by time compression in my experience.

I disagree with the premise entirely, that there is a balance between "realism and fun" in a game. Take modeling going to the bathroom, the guy mowing the grass at the Space Center, etc off the table. We're talking about the mechanics of movement, and a few relevant technologies within space flight/rocketry/orbital mechanics. What determines fun has exactly nothing to do with the physics, arbitrary and wrong physics is no more inherently fun than non-arbitrary real physics. No one is suggesting that you be a physicist to play. As it is, the UI is good enough that the physics is unseen by the player anyway. People are arguing that the unseen black box be arbitrarily lousy at math because if the players knew the math was right, they'd apparently decide that it was less fun. The user experience would not change. Would the trajectories change? Sure, but not the user experience.

No, they'd not be arbitrary at all. Arbitrary would be making them intentionally unrealistic for no reason. Realism means that new things added later make sense. There is no need to balance "realistic" physics, they are what they are. When you make stuff up as a dev/modder, you have to keep making everything up arbitrarily "for balance." It's not an awful lot of work to reset a scaling factor. People do it in mods, people might do it this evening over a beer. Much has already been done from whole cloth (FAR, etc) already. I have proposed nothing of the sort you suggest, BTW. Do you not think Isp should work as the math has it actually work? Seriously, the anti-realism folks seem wedded to what, KSP as it is this instant? 0.24.2? Are any changes good? My comments on the user not knowing the difference are not that the ships would behave identically, it's that the USER EXPERIENCE would be identical. You'd still get to the Mun, but the specifics would be very slightly different. The user experience, exactly the same. You build a rocket, you fly it the same (different values to numbers of trajectories here and there, but the act of flying is the same). Shape orbits the same way, your maneuver node will just have slightly different burn lengths, etc. In other words gameplay not hugely changed from the perspective of actually playing, though what craft are idea for a certain mission design likely will change.

Great point, r_rolo1. I wonder if those vociferously against any changes are in fact against any changes? are they KSP 0.24.2 fundamentalists? Or perhaps 0.23? Or sod they reserve judgement unless a change is proposed by someone in the forum, "just because?"

A typically fraught, emotional post by someone who appears to be reflexively anti-realism without actually defining what that means ("he said "realism," so I'm a'gin it!"). Firstly, there is an assumption that "more realistic" somehow equates to less fun, and/or far more difficult to play. If a few numbers were changed to make something more realistic, would you even notice? Would anyone unaware of the change? Except for having played many, many hours, in particular, I'd have to say the answer would be "no." Everyone will likely have to change reentry parameters when they fix what they have now (virtually impossible not to reenter successfully except for failure to leave time compression as far as I can tell, I've had zero failures except one because I could not reenter 2 ships at one time). Anyone starting from scratch would likely assume that reentry mattered if they knew about the Space Shuttle at all, for example. Them making the cash register ring is a legitimate concern. It's been pitched as a WIP, and I think people expect things to change in such a state. No one is proposing anything remotely as detailed as Orbiter. The things talked about are: an actual atmosphere (and aerodynamics), reentry with some possible consequence (vs none now), some corrections to math (Isp issue no one would notice much), and possibly some sort of life support (LS units consumed per guy, per day with a stock per CM). That's it. The last is a slightly scaled up Kerbin/solar system also proposed to balance the likely effects of an actual atmosphere---to make the game behave nearly as it does right now for existing players, basically (by definition a change you'd hardly notice, and soon forget). Funny, I can think of many more counter examples. What games lost players because of too much realism? Are there any games that are actually too realistic? The Silent Hunter games are almost universally played modded, because they are dreck without mods (far too unrealistic to be interesting to anyone). Ditto AoE, etc. Il-2 was decently realistic, and virtually all players were for improvements to that, not asking to dumb it down. How about Pirates of the Burning Sea? Loads of hype in development… it was to be a sailing simulator for awesome age of sail battles against other people… they decided to aim for "the masses" and dumbed it down so far no one wanted to play. People claimed "realistic sailing is too hard," and the anti-realism people said that you'd need to control every sail as in RL… which is wrong. We are using computers, we don;t have to do that ourselves, we have a UI that allows us to pick an action, and we don't need to know all the nuts and bolts. Forming an orbit with maneuver nodes, for example. If the math changes a few percent behind the scenes, no one will ever know from the "difficulty" of doing it, it'll just change the best design choices. Here's the thing, realism in the sense that all the "realism" people are asking for is almost entirely realistic physics outcomes within the regime the game encompasses. That's it. The game need not encompass everything and try to be Orbiter, but what it does try to do, get the physics right. That's it. "Difficulty has exactly zero to do with this math, the difficulty has more to do with the UI than anything else, and they have a good basic UI built. You want whatever it is you want (nearly identical gameplay, but with grossly unrealistic rockets, I guess), so everyone else should not have an opinion. Got it. (If post reads as harsh, sorry, it's an argument, I don't take them personally (who would, they're just ideas?). Being told to "get lost" if I disagree tends to make me perhaps more pointed than I might otherwise be. I'd imagine we'd all have a fine discussion over a pint, even the most fractious of us)

Regarding stations, I suppose there are two mechanisms for making them "useful." One is that refueling or building ships is orbit is somehow encouraged (clunky stuff impossible to launch intact, for example). Or perhaps at a certain level you can unlock a "Spacecraft Assembly Module" that has manipulator arms, etc, and allows a "VAB in space." The other is simply by contract. The contract could be to erect a solar power station in orbit, for example, where it must produce a certain amount of power, and have facilities for X crew (maybe add a new part to beam microwaves to Kermin). The latter is legit, though ham-fisted. I'd like to see them useful because they are useful. In RL, it is more of a human physiology lab, though for longer duration flights presumably there might be some in-space assembly of the actual spacecraft that might use a station as a marshaling area, right?

Regarding kerbals flying, I could see that for some sort of automated repeat missions at some point (we're talking larger, fully space-faring societies at this point with "scheduled service"). Like the player does the first run, and the kerbs replicate it (say piling up stuff in orbit someplace). I have no idea. Maybe fixing stuff? Dunno, seems like the ratings should have some use That said, their reactions alone are a legit use, and can be pretty funny.

To borrow from the anti-realism crowd, do kerbals get cancer? Their world is tiny, they might have evolved for higher radiation levels. Honestly, anything related to Kerbal physiology is far easier to handwave away, unless you have some working model of Kerbal medical science (must remember to capitalize or spell checker changes it). It's enough for the stock game for them to say that kernels need 1 unit of life support per day (food/water/air/scrubbing-all inclusive), and that long durations trips might need a special "long duration module" (retexture the hitchhiker or something). The LDM would include whatever it is that kernels need of longer trips that is in addition to consumables (exercise equipment, recreation, a "storm shelter" whatever you want to imagine). Realistic mods can mess with those to make them specific to nominal human issues if they wish. Radiation is a tangent, frankly, and I don;t care one way or another about it. Having LS alone is great, and the plus of "radiation" is that it adds another novel set of design limitations. I look at design limitations as a PLUS for gameplay. Take Minecraft. My kids love it, and I have played a bit as well. My daughter uses dead flat worlds and builds stuff (creative). I much prefer survival, and real worlds, adding my home to an extant village someplace with awesome terrain, and using the terrain as a feature for designs. Looks better than if I had no limits, IMO. My actual house is not dissimilar, it's on the side of the mountain here, and sort of berms into the hill (you can step onto my roof)… heck, I have boulders inside my house, they worked around them to make it, and the house is nicer because of that.

KerikBalm, your points are all well taken. I do plan on modding up, I just wanted to let the devs know what I thought od KSP before I in effect started playing a game they didn't entirely make. I like your lander stack. Does it wobble much?

I did some work with NASA outreach back at the Uni a long time ago. We did edu projects with kids. I'd use this as an edu tool with certain basic fixes done (by mods or improving the stock game). It's not a lot to ask that the 1st order physics not be too far from reality in a game whose PR says as much. That's pretty much the extent of the "total realism" that anyone here is asking for. It's being presented as if any of us wanting a little more realism are actually asking for something akin to an even more realistic version of "Orbiter," when in fact we're only asking for things to be first order approximations of what people who know slightly more than nothing about rockets might expect---like having to put nosecones on rockets to make them aerodynamic, vs launching something that looks like randomly put together legos. BTW, for "crazy" builds there is a simple expedient Squad could do---add the ability to achieve (or start with depending on settings) an orbital or munar VAB/ launch facility. What a tech tree goal… set up a munar base or station of certain parameters, and POOF! A stock VAB gets added to it.

You have to wonder what courage and stupidity are for (forgive me if this is old news, but I have no idea) other than deciding how to animate the faces during scary stuff (concern vs stupid glee). At some point you'd expect modifiers for something based on astronaut skill. Dunno what, though (getting more science based on lack of stupidity, per perhaps more in some dangerous missions based on courage?).