tater

Whatever happens to them that happens to them without life support, I suppose. No one is suggesting that they model internal organs for kerbals. LS can be in units of LS per astronaut, per day (each astronaut uses 1 per day and different habitation modules contain X units each). Let people know that near certain bodies (with a list, and danger distances), they will lose Y units of expendable LS for normal habitation modules, and if a special "shielded" habitation module were built to some other standard (heavy mass) that holds the entire crew, then it immunizes the entire craft from this damage. Otherwise it subtracts LS units pro rata. Other modules (like I have seen in the LS mod) can add excess storage for LS supplies. This gives the sense of cumulative exposure (though the medicine for humans is not as cut and dried as people used to think regarding radiation exposure, actually), and whatever happens only happens if they hit the threshold. I suppose if you really want to track your guys through their careers, they could be given some cumulative abuse allotment, at which point they are retired, or if their stupidity is low enough, they quit in disgust . Done. Not overly complicated.

I never played III, as I'm only interested in hunting U-boats, not role-playing them V was not my interest, either, for the same reason (and they jumped the shark and "fixed" the inside, eye-candy stuff instead of making the submarine behave more realistically, and also the game experience more realistic. I was a SH4 guy, PTO. Worked on a bunch of smaller mods, a couple of which are part of RSRD. BTW, realism comes up in SH as well. It's funny that many equate "harder" with "more realistic" when this is not always the case at all. In SH, you play "easy" and the torpedoes are locked and aimed by the game. Point scope, fire fish, profit. Dumb, and far too easy. "Full real," OTOH, has you plotting the enemy on the map, and doing all the work to set up the attack… the trouble is that that is NOT realistic. In RL, the skipper points the scope, says "bearing… MARK" and one of his junior officers in the firing party then calls out the bearing… to two other guys, one of whom draws a line on the chart at that bearing while the TDC operator enters that data in the TDC. The skipper then takes a range, "Range… MARK," and the same guy calls out the stadimeter value (based on the skipper's guess of ship class). Skipper also estimates AOB. All of which is plotted, and simultaneously entered in the TDC. Realistic in this case (had they bothered to do it) is a little harder than "easy," and way easier than "full real," as the game has the player doing the work of 4-5m people at once. Bottom line is that a good UI can make something that behaves in a very realistic fashion not be difficult to play, but you need to think about it that way instead of dumbing it down from the start.

Cancer? You exactly mimic the trope I was talking about. "If we don't model cancer---and who wants to play "cancer"---then there is no point in even abstracting radiation." Again, all or nothing. No one here, no one, is asking for 100% realism. How about the next attack on the notion that the game could be more realistic (outcomes matching expectations we all have from living within the universe, the way it works) can be that any time compression is unrealistic? That would nip everything in the bud, lol. All life support can be abstracted. Eye on the ball. The goal is not to add tons of unnecessary detail, but to account for the fact that longer trips need larger (more mass to move) habitation areas. Stations that are long duration need resupply. That's the sum total we are going for here. Why do you need X hitchhiker modules per Y astronauts? Life support, shielding, exercise, etc. Done. The simple mechanism is some sort of number of kerb-days supplies per pod of a different size. A new pod might be a "Long term habitation module" that has a crap ton of stuff in it (abstracted). Radiation can mostly be assumed as part of habitation designs, anyway. Not 100% realism, but a nod to reality. Can be a difficulty toggle, anyway.

Yeah. All my first builds had nosecones on the SRBs, for example.

My first lander was my orbiter with legs on it. Mk1 with chute, a stage separator (at the time I assumed the capsule needed to land alone at Kerbin), one of the double-sized tanks (or 2 of the 200s, can't remember), and the LV-909 engine I think. And 3 legs stuck on. I launched the lander alone first t decide how far the legs needed to be placed to just clear the nozzle. I realized I needed a wider lander later. Of course I also hated having the rocket look wrong at first, and most KSP rockets need a fairing to be even remotely plausible looking... I had no ladder, and didn't realize how high I could jump/fly on EVA, so I didn't do an EVA (I was so tilted on the 1st one that I honestly think had I hit EVA the weight of Jeb hanging off would have tipped it over easily).

Simple thing I just posted in the realism thread. You know the info icon while in flight? Or the contract icon in flight? Make a similar one for delta v in the VAB. The content would be a list of worlds in the system, and it shows the dv required (min) to get to each world from the surface of Kermin, and puts a check next to each that your current build can get to. This is for new players (ideally it could also show the actual dv of your build for more experienced players). This is in the spirit of their current UI choices, and gives a new builder incredibly useful data (and the min dv by no means guarantees they'll even get to orbit, lol, just that a good player could get to the target).

The delta v readout in the VAB is a particularly glaring error in terms of making it easy for people. A little "roadmap" icon (like the info, tracking, etc in map view) in the VAB might be a simple list of total dv needed to get different places under ideal conditions. It could even put a check next to places you could go (like success in a contract element) based on the current build.

I've been playing under 2 weeks (evenings, after the kids go to bed). I landed on the Mun in career mode the first night. Maybe I'll see what the kids think this weekend and give feedback for how an 8 year old does (I have to admit I loved the post about setting up FAR and a couple other mods before letting my kids touch it so they don't get the wrong idea about how things should roughly work, though).

I keep hearing people talk about killing kerbals, but I've so far managed to kill exactly ONE, and it was honestly a mistake of the game engine (or my realizing that something could not be done). I grabbed a (empty tanks, with a pilot aboard) ship with a grabber, threw it into reentry parameters, and guided it in. I braked the grabber ship to make a separation to pilot both in, but the first reentry took a few seconds too long, and the 2d ship hit without me able to switch to it. I forgot I could not switch ships during reentry (which makes no sense, as the chute was already popped on the first, and there was literally nothing for me to do but wait). I've been playing under 2 weeks. Stranded a few (all rescued later), killed 1 for the above reason. They are pretty much impossible to kill except by user error so far.

I should add (regarding mods) that some games are basically unplayable without mods. Silent Hunter 4 is a great example. Out of the box, the game is awful. I started modding it (both installing mods to play, and making my own) almost immediately. The game was already "done" in the eyes of the devs as I saw it, and no chance to impact the stock game (that boat had already sailed (I used "boat" on purpose, sub people will understand )). I can honestly say that I barely remember the unmodded gameplay specifics at this point, though I could tell you the sink rate I set IJN depth charges to, or how far Kaibokan can throw them (as modded in by me). I felt like if I started to add mods very quickly I'd lose track of where the actual game is. So since this game is explicitly a WIP right now, I think the least I can do for the devs (aside from spending my money as I did) is to mess with the game as-is for a while, even if some of it bugs me ATM. Again, trying to be a good tester.

Thanks for the replies, and I hope that any discussion might be of use to devs should they read it. Any other noobs feel free to chime in! I was talking about career mode, actually, I have not messed with sandbox, I was aiming for the "real" experience to start. Clipping parts is cheating, IMHO. 2 fuel tanks in the volume of 1.75 or something? How can that not be cheating? Asking for cargo pods is not unreasonable. What you put in them is your own business I'm aware of many mods. My comments are not to read myself type, I posted (as I said) in the hopes that observations from a brand-new player might be useful at some level to the devs (assuming they ever read posts in this forum (I debated which forum to post in, this seemed the most appropriate). I could have modded up before even starting my "real" career mode, but then any comments I had on gameplay would be basically useless to the devs (I've been and alpha and beta tester for a number of games, as well as an active modder). I'm trying for constructive criticism

In the stock game as-is? Why bother when you can launch anything and not have to deal with docking, etc? You'd have to want to do it by choice, it's really not incentivized (more reality would be all the incentive needed). Or am I missing something? Maybe It'll be required for a manned Jool mission---particularly since I will add hitchhikers, and other realistic stuff to that that is in no way required or incentivized just because such a craft should have minimum life support requirements. Again, like my stations, this will be elective, and in fact disincentivized by the game.

Yeah, wall of text, but I figured maybe a dev might be interested in what someone thinks of 0.24.2 who had never seen the game before. I checked when I started the forum (I joined on 20 August), and I think I had played a couple evenings before I posted, so these are the observations of a player who has played about 1 week, certainly less than 2 weeks. I started with a few of the tutorials in-game, then messed with a few scenarios to look around---Flight, orbiting, and the first Mun one. I didn't realize I had to EVA to get to the spaceplane in the Station One scenario, undocked it, and had to EVA to try and get it… which I botched pretty seriously… I then realized there was another spaceplane nearby in orbit, and grabbed that one (yes, I noticed it was damaged). I tried to dock (remember, this is like the 4th thing I've done in KSP)… Think "Gravity" and you'll have a picture of what the station ended up looking like . I then messed with the EVA scenario to try and grok that. OK, enough practice, I started a science campaign as I wanted to start small and try and learn in little steps with the lowest hardware. That went well, and I even managed a couple Mun landings within an evening. OK, a late night (wife wondered why I came to bed past 1am). I have not filled in the whole tech tree, but a heck of a lot of it. Played that campaign a few nights, landing on a couple worlds outside Kerbin's SOI, then on the weekend I started a "regular" career. I'm now full up to some of the 300 science stuff in the tech tree, and I'm not really gunning for science since I know I can do it fast with a few landings on the Mun or Minmus. Rocket construction: Fun, but the lack of things I'd expect to use being useful is not great. I want to put nosecones on. I don't want lander parts hanging out in the breeze. I've seen a fair number of rockets, I've been to a few launches (even got to see a Kerbal like use of range control at White Sands once… BOOM!). I have expectations of what they look like. I'm fine with spacecraft being entirely different, but that's what construction in space is for. (i.e.: the atmosphere should matter) The lack of dv information in VAB design is a problem (yes, I know there is a mod, this is all about stock). Basic flying: The UI is pretty good. It's easy to understand, and uncluttered. Kudos. The interiors don't really have useful view information or I might actually use them to fly (in other games like flight sims, or serious play in Silent Hunter 4, I consider exterior views "cheating" and don't do it, so more useful interiors might be of use, but the exteriors are pretty, so I can live with that (though not for flying aircraft)). For a noob, docking was the hardest thing to get decent at, but the learning curve was not steep, the first couple attempts were… not efficient. I'm still not great, but I don't doubt I can dock, it's just a matter of having enough RCS. Orbital maneuvers are easily possible by trial and error using maneuver nodes. Science/Tech Tree: Not a fan of the current arrangement. It's kind of bizarre. I understand the desire to "get better stuff," but it needs to make sense to have enough suspension of disbelief that you can get into it, and not consider it a grind. There are threads here about it, and I sought one out for my first post on this forum specifically. Campaigns are important. I think the devs should entertain novel ideas to make them interesting, and also just really look at the idea of "science" vs "flight engineering data" for incrementing technology. I'd like some major tech nodes, and more incremental stuff in between (same parts being upgraded to slightly better models, slap a new texture on them (even if it's just a part number label on the texture map). The amount you get need to be smaller for some things (sample returns), and larger for others (probe data transmitted). Contracts: Meh. Some are fine, others are just annoying. After dutifully trying to test an engine at 1600-8300m and 160-something m/s several times (all 4 things required had checks) but failing (think I needed to stage the rocket right then or something) I simply abandoned all the test contracts that could not be done trivially. I don't mind being asked to build novel test-beds, but some are just too dumb to want to bother with. I realize 0.25 might address some of these last two sets of comments. Stuff I wish there were good reasons to do: 1. Build even small space stations. I built one in each of my 2 career games "because." There is no reason to make them, I just thought it would be cool. More requirements for missions (life support, etc) might make assembly in orbit critical (which would be a good thing for gameplay, IMHO). I think there would need to be a new docking port that makes 2 bodies rigid, perhaps (a full-diameter ring, perhaps it can even be a decoupler that can be mated in space?). 2. Apollo-style landers. This is basically asking for cargo stages. An empty tube with a decoupler on the bottom, inside, for the cargo. 3. Longer term science. Place probes in orbit to study a world, sensors left on the surface to transmit science. Medical studies of astronauts on orbit. Probes that skim atmospheres, etc, etc. These provide reasons to build new craft. 4. Make Munar or other world bases. Other thoughts: I am aware the devs don't like "random," but there is a good place for some random elements in a game that encourages replay. The player might get a contract to test a new engine. Say the Skipper-X. The X in this case is for "experimental." The reward might be adding that engine to the parts list for him. The testing might be a series of tests in real flights (over Kerbin, near the Mun, etc), but this X engine might have a random chance of failure in a few ways. Doesn't work, has a small explosion that results in fuel leaks, gibing doesn't work as planned (locks at an angle), etc. Chance of failure need not even be super high, and taking the test contract is still a choice. So far some of the most fun I've had has been rescuing a few ships in odd orbits I managed to strand earlier in the week (and one last night when I accidentally staged part of my lander unintentionally). Failures are fun. Even random ones. Heck, random rocks clobbering something would not bother me (it can be a toggle in difficulty settings ). Reentry. There needs to be a penalty. The only guy I have killed so far was from my recent rescue. I used a grabber to get a vessel that I built before docking rings, and elected to send it home for reentry. I then braked a little, and figured I'd reenter one, then the other. The first hit the atmosphere, and I found I could not switch to the 2d one until the first was all the way recovered, and apparently the chute doesn't open without me hitting space bar and it crashed. Aside from the fact it should not have happened, I could work around and make sure they are spaced farther apart for reentry next time. Still, guys were stuck in orbit for game years in my 1st campaign (did loads of time compression messing with distant probes and left poor Jeb in munar orbit for many years while I sent a couple ships to the other side of the solar system). I'd have tried a rescue earlier if I needed to… because he was gonna die, for example. Anyway, a simple lie support would not be awful.

I didn't think you were, I was just pointing out my lack of long-term forum knowledge for reference.

I'm not doubting this, but how can they possibly add in any sort of realistic aerodynamics and not have fairings? I suppose they could just make a series of standard sizes...

There are a lot of mods. Sorry, I'm a noob (though I try and read ahead to make sure I'm not posting crap already dismissed, etc). Glad to see it's a good idea

I've been playing a week? Maybe 2. My first post here was either made the first day I DLed, or I think the next day. I played a couple of the tutorials, messed with 2 scenarios (one was the station, and I switched to the spaceplane not realizing I had to egress the station to board it This resulted in a not terribly effective EVA (now you know where those "rescue a Kerbal" missions come from). I then started a science career, and in the space of a couple slowly consumed beers, landed on the Mun a couple times within that career. My only caveat is that I'm not entirely unfamiliar with orbital mechanics. I'd image all the "aim for realism" people would entirely agree with sliders. This is a common trope by anti-realism people in all games "if you don't model going to the bathroom, or stirring your coffee it's not 'total realism'!" The timer aspect can be in there, and the other expendables can be abstracted. ANy abstraction is better than not thinking about it at all. Minimal shielding can be assumed in small capsules, and any habitation module can be assumed to have either enough shielding for nominal radiation, or possibly a "storm shelter" for solar flares. It need not be all or nothing, and not one person here has asked for "total realism, anyway that I have seen. Nothing even close. I am (willing to forget unrealistic spaceplanes, entirely). So far I've stayed away from any spaceplanes because I think they are too magical. A simple solution might be some sort of autopilot capability, the carrier craft might circle at some altitude until the player can get into orbit, then come back and take the plane over. Honestly, in a single player game there is no reason not to simply have the carrier "pause" and wait, with the clock reset for the landing phase (you'd watch a reply of your spacecraft fly off into space as you landed the carrier). If you assume ground stations at the planet surface in enough places, commo can be assumed. It seems like that needs some work anyway, else there is little reason not to use the base antenna, anyway (certainly a high-gain for farther travelling craft). Good ideas. Yeah, I think this is a good idea as well. Some sort of automation would help for larger scale space programs. The player is "R&D," and some routine launches are merely scheduled. The credit system really should look into the ability to set standard designs which can be "in the shed" and ready to launch with some sort of price reduction. Such standard craft, and cargos could be auto-launched into a marshaling area. True enough. In my 2 weeks playing, the hardest thing so far was getting decent at matching orbits and docking. (all my play has been vanilla, BTW). I disagree here. I've now built a couple stations (1 in my first, science career, another in my newer "real" career), and I did it entirely for fun as they are completely unnecessary in the game as far as I can tell. If there was a REASON to build them, so much the better. For example, if you put a station up with a certain "SAB" (Spacecraft Assembly Bay) module, and can demonstrate a rocket that can lift cargo of a certain mass to it, the automated system you suggest for repeat launches places those upper stages within physics distance of the station. There might be a new part that is a standard cargo pod. Perhaps the same "proof of delivery" run could allow those pods to appear docked with the station at the SAB for future use.

Agree, 100%. Atmosphere/reentry as primary issues, IMHO. Followed by life support.

Well, he explicitly said "empty space" which doesn't imply atmosphere at all (which is neither space, nor empty ). Shuttle reentry took something like 70 minutes from full commitment to touchdown. That's 17.5 minutes at 4X, so kinda tedious, I agree. But that's a full-size earth.

TOS: campy, but decent for the time period. Loved it as a kid. The addition of time travel on demand breaks everything, however. (sucks with some other time travel device like a portal, but far worse if they can do it at will) TNG: Some good acting (among a lot of bad acting), but irredeemably awful, saccharine utopian plots filled with technobabble nonsense. Had the writers paid attention to virtually anything previously written even for their own version of the show, they could solve all storyline problems in the first few minutes just from the technobabble on the fly tech improvements from the previous handful of episodes, and that's without even resorting to time travel (which after TOS can be done at will, also breaking everything). TNG plot: awesome starship enterprise… breaks. Invent new technology to fix it and solve problems, forgetting another technology invented a previous episode makes them invulnerable, or whatever. Lazy writing. DS9: saw a few, it sucked. Never watched the others.

I should add that I'm all for realism options. Heck, from a "stock" POV, the simple expedient for more realistic sized worlds (Kerbin would only be a slightly larger as suggested) and distances could be a "harder" start game option, with the extant version as the "normal" default. A primary reason for wanting some of these realism ideas as "stock" is that even if they can be disabled in difficulty settings, they are a better benchmark for players who want minimal modding, or simply so mods can work on non-stock things without interfering (I was an active modder in a submarine sim (SH4), and mods quickly get to the point where you must assume or include other mods, and additional mods added to an install can easily break everything).

I'm aware of that, I was not discussing physics warp, but on rails time warp. I was replying to this statement (which I quoted in my reply, BTW): "just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place" It was in reference to the space between worlds possibly increasing, and had exactly nothing to do with physics warp (close to planetary objects).

I'm pure vanilla, I've only been playing a couple weeks (or is it one week?). I rarely have to kill any process on my machine, if it were not for the odd power failure every couple years, or updates that require a restart, my machine would have an uptime measured in years.

I listened to it while doing some plastering at home today. The dev said that aside from spaceplane plus, the focus of 0.25 was the new admin building, and how it would make more sense of career modes by factoring in money, reputation and science. Admin building makes play style more customizable and adds "interaction" between the three currencies (money/rep/science). That was all in the first 5 minutes, and I switched to a ww1 history podcast for the remainder of my plastering after the podcast went off from 0.25

I will try and replicate it, it could well be. I checked the stickies for lists of known issues before posting and didn't see it, but figured some feedback is better than none.