Kegereneku

Well, I didn't focused on atmospheric pressure because it is already covered by the game (and keep my suggestion simple), and using pressure alone is also how we ended up with air-intake spamming. In any case it goes without saying in my suggestion that pressure would also balance the spec of engines. Normally Terminal Velocity shouldn't create deadlock where a turbojet can't accelerate or climb (no intake spam possible here) at the altitude required to start a RAPIER. I took large range for that. - - - Updated - - - Since the subject is getting very popular now let's bump ! (I have no shame)

I don't know how long it have been since you last played the game but "Planned Feature" saying "Tycoon like" did not lie in what is being done right know, managing a SPACE PROGRAM is playing Tycoon. The technological level is just far lower, and the gameplay far less abstracted. SQUAD did try a "Resources system" where you would mine and sell (fuel mostly) but discovered than it wasn't actually fun. And looking at the last known diagram I believe them. Now they said they will retry in the future with a system only meant for "Deep Space Refueling". The thing to keep in mind is that to have FUN while grinding mineral and else require to change the dynamic of the game toward something more like a Strategy/Management game (what KSP isn't). More solar system have NEVER been planned, some players just dreamed vocally. Plus once again I don't think it would actually be "fun" to explore hundred of quasi-similar planet. As for the rest... it's already there or coming little by little, not in world changing update. (It took some time for SQUAD to chose the best timing)

I didn't make a statement about FAR's realism, I made a statement about STOCK PART realism which are only approximation of what many would imagine a spaceplane to look like. Myself I do not actually care about whether or not those part are, aerodynamically sound. Reality surprised us more than enough to suspend disbelief in a game as long as it look grossly right. For example : Do anybody here know why the Skylon engine look bent on its usual representation ? (although the plane is mostly a big rocketplane) Do anybody here know why the X-43 (fastest air-breathing vehicle made) fly straight although its wingbody/engine look asymmetrical ? I'm afraid many would disagree with my vision over misunderstood point. My idea is that although the engine should encourage streamlined details like fairing, it should allow to overlook the actual plane form (as it do now) so that many fun design stay possible, and balance through parts-spec. Something which can in fact be considered realistic (jet-engine design change considerably depending of speed/pressure) I posted that recently, feel free to up it if you like. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105041-Jet-engine-Intake-velocity-ranges?p=1632859#post1632859 To give an analogy : in a game with sword and mace, do you determine blunt vs slice damage over form, or do you just create two distinct abstraction ? In any case, don't worry I'll keep my answer to clarifying my "rant" rather than defending it. Indeed. It was to be expected of SQUAD to look deeper in their code anyway but I believe that balancing the game will more be a question of internal part-spec than shape. As you point out, MODS will still allow to increase difficulty, but for that the game need to be more simple and open than what you want to make. (it is not always possible to mods into something easier if the base game mechanic is extremely interdependent) Well, to cut short in a potential flame war, I excuse myself if it feel a cheap fallacious rhetoric trick. However I do not call multiple instance of ONE GUY posting 3 threads implying he know best and at best a few non-representative figure over the thousand player of KSP a "vast majority". Just like I do not assume that all player using FAR do it because they believe it's more realist. (someone earlier just said he did so for extra challenge) (edit : including missing feature from stock aero like DR) As said above : Mods can give you the increased realism you want. But for that the base game need to be Open&Simple enough that it IS possible. some minor note : I do agree on "pancake" but "asparagus" is a design that work more efficiently. It's not commonly used in rocket design because (1) it's complicated (2) it's not worth the complexity yet As much as I'll give respect to anybody who DO great code, sometime the opinion of even a professional can be wrong because of different point of view. Analogy : Americain "Few beefy engine" versus Russian "Lot of simpler engine", and none is ultimately wrong as right now Space X's engineer went with a 9 engine stack in between.

Just to say, stacked multiplane exist, it's just aerodynamically unpredictable and give too much drag for the bonus lift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_%28aeronautics%29 Of course I know the devs is here talking of something that look definitely insane.

As expected complete overeaction from people who believe FAR to be "superior" because it give them the illusion of ultimate realism. And empty threat to stay on version 0.01 as well, yet nobody even SAW the new model in action. Oh I'm not sure I want to be on this forum when they'll release 0.91. Dozen thread asking "CHANGE THE AERO MODEL", "Why is my unrealistic plane not flying anymore ?", "HELP can't fly my moonbase in one part anymore !"... and certainly a few one from the same author saying "real athmospheric dynamic is better for new player". My opinion of "the truth" is that if stock (and FAR) didn't simplified physics you wouldn't be here having fun. Any protruding part like landing let would destabilize you rocket, you would never have been able to fit mobile-base in a fairing and launch it, you wouldn't be able to build replica of the shuttle or fictional vehicle, it would take you many hours of try&fail experiments to make a simplistic rocket, Cupcake wouldn't have built all his SSTO...etc (I can continue all day) KSP was never meant as a simulator so I was not surprised to hear a Dev saying "we didn't aim for realism" knowing he have to tiptoe on eggs because of entitled & egocentric vocal minority who believe their way of appreciating the game encompass all the fun that can be had from it. Remember that the early versions didn't become popular because they "more realistic" than their predecessor, it was because they allowed to play AS IF it was rocket-science but without the boring/unfeasible part. And so the new aerodynamic model will put gameplay before realism, that's what they always did. They will hopefully tweak the system to behave as would be expected to without requiring an actual diploma in aeronautic design, by any luck we will still be able to twist the system into a unforeseen variety of fun design and even more luckily it will stay balanced with career mode. I cannot talk about FAR because I have never used it (though I want better than current stock aero). But I can tell you the spaceplane part we have now are not strictly speaking "realistic" anyway. At the speed needed to reach orbital velocity aerodynamic change fundamentally and design like a do-everything delta-wing could surprisingly not work because of wake turbulence that would disintegrate the plane... or simply because of drag. As said by someone else before, you are either building a cool spaceplane, or you are building a Skylon Law-dart That's was my rant against so called "realism" proponent.

I think there's a better solution for docking and no need to forbid renaming. While docking you would choose the name of the station amongst one of the roots capsule, for Contract you would only be forbidden from changing the name of a core that fulfill a contract. Yet, I'm thinking that separating a Core/pod containing the name of the station to move it somewhere else and fulfill a contract could lead to absurd situation or Exploit. Need to work on details around that. In any case I would definitively not be forbidden to to rename spaceship.

I've got to agree with that for the reason stated first. Increasing grindyness do not change gameplay difficulty. Btw, message to SQUAD, I would loooove you guy if you didn't generated mission too randomly. I guess it make a lot easier to create content but if you could at least change the filter to keep out absurd result (especially on Part Test) it would make the game a lot more immersive.

I don't see a need for new rocket size or capsules except for the ones we already have. Increasing size is mostly a part-saving measure for equal functionality. More parts with the very same functions, and tanks too similar in quantity would be redundant. I only have a remote interest for theses : - high-thrust 0.625 engines - Long 0.625 tanks better 1.25m nose cone and inline-cockpit turning the mk2 landing can to 3 places - Nuclear 2.5m engine - Aerospike 2.5m engines - Intermediary 3.75m engine - mk3 drone core Adapter that give secure joint and fairing for multi engines intermediary stage

Landing on Mun and Duna I would typically use droptank attached to the landing gear, using the same engine(s). Any fuel surplus on the Mun allow me to reach more biomes and the return stage have its own surplus. So I'm should be always winning as long as I use all fuel in the droptank.

SQUAD must know about things like this, but it's hard to balance a game and they need for all feature to be present to do that. Putting it early like they did is a way to spot Exploit even more than bug, so they know what to change. Like the possibility to get free science using another of the Strategy, though I don't remember which. It is just too soon.

If I remember right, wasn't the problem that light source cannot be created from outside the 2km physics sphere ? Could it be solved by displaying the runway on the HUD ?

A note : I don't think the developers are avoiding time-based mechanic. As pointed out feature like these would require a equivalent to Kerbal Alarm Clock before being playable, and furthermore, since time is the common denominator to everything. I understand they would prefer to introduce all feature that might depend on it to know what they have to balance. The are probably... managing their time. I'm nitpicking over the term but achieving something more interesting doesn't strictly speaking require a time-based mechanism. And done badly it could in fact be more detrimental than interesting. See my final note in bold down. However all science would gain from being more interactive/immersive (if not too repetitive), to feel what we are studying even in a remote way. Example right of the bat : using thermometer would show in the report a visual that we commonly associate to the temperature found (not that the science-report isn't funny in itself, just a idea) (I'm totally thinking about creating a topic for that stupid idea) Just to say, I once suggested to distinguish the whole science system into "soft science" that is being done automatically as long as the sensors are active, and "hard science" that require interaction for massive gain. Having myself wrote a thread about time-based mechanic I know perfectly what you mean. However I insist that (the way you phrased it at least) your argumentations on the subject is insisting too much on "thing to take time" because "it does" rather than as a gameplay mechanic. I do not follow you much over the "temporalities" of the game, or maybe I don't get what you mean. The ability to instantaneously skip boring parts is an integral part of games which must only be changed if you have a specific gameplay or balance. So there isn't so much a problem or lack -more like "can we improve the game"- that would require to add one/more time-based mechanism. To me it's more to give the tempo. Launching a dozen of mission in less than a week for example is something that create a disjunction with any expected time-frame. However, to use as an example to emphasize my point, keeping player waiting until their rocket is being built wouldn't be a sensible solution (even with time warp) as it deprive them of choice while offering nothing to do. (Also as pointed out it's impossible because player NEED last second modification) I'm a little selling my own idea there but abstracting the passage of time through another mechanic (say Periodic Budget) without imposing things would push the player to plan a few "period / turn" in advance while keeping both choice, and a feeling of very similitude. Even if a spaceship is built instantaneously, it doesn't matter if all in all it can retroactively be reckoned as "planned", improving the verisimilitude of the game in a non frustrating way. On a final note : the time scale is a very very crucial parameter. KSP is a game where a Duna-mission is expected to launch, then near-immediately (from the player's perspective) be picked up ingame-years later. This is not a bug, not a flaw, this is a wanted feature. Thus, game-designer shouldn't design time-based mechanic that would require the player's attention every in-game day (in particular if a player might feel loosing something by skipping them).

I created myself a thread on the subject some time ago. It made me come to the realization that to make the players WANT to take account of time you have to create a game mechanic that make use of it. And not any game mechanic, it had to be something fundamentally simple but around which you would hinge most other features. The basic was that the player must always have something to do as he wait, even if it's planning, in fact the BEST time-based mechanic is one where the player is constantly hoping to be in time (And the best developpers is the one that make you think you don't, even when you actually have). From that, one of my idea was a try on the concept of "Periodic Budget", (and I'm thinking to make another one for new reasons) At that point I'm wondering if the devs didn't already planned something in their secret base but can't finish it before all mechanism required for it to make sense are implemented. Yep, sometime I prefer to bet on SQUAD's being more competent than they look. In any case, it's still a good thing to discuss. After reading your post, I find that you do focus too much on realism for the sake of realism. I understand your reasoning on the "disjunction" but for players there is also such a thing as acceptable break from reality which is supported by Willing Suspension of Disbelief. It mean that even you/SQUAD cannot create a game mechanism that take account of the passage of time it is not harmful for the game experience. On the other hand there's features known as anti-fustration, Timewarp is one of them, created because forcing upon the player meaningless wait time would be extremely detrimental for the game experience. For example : "Experiments that take time" or "science over time" We all know how much science something you will get out of something, that we won't have more by waiting, and that we are timewarping so much we could be doing 3 missions at once. With this in mind it is unnecessary to make people WAIT (for artificial reasons) over this. BTW, I think that many people will confuse your example as masked suggestion. So expect people to argue against Ships Building taking time or Resources Gathering...even if that's not the subject. (just to say, I would argue against myself) I can't really say yes, because I think we only need one, one that give a tempo to the progression of our entire space program. And things like "Resources Gathering" would make very poor time-based mechanism (I have lost too much time already on Minecraft). However... if we can find a way to make experiment more immersive, that's something else.

"You changed it, now it suck." That Joke aside, I just noticed you put the RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit after the OKTO2, although they have a SAS level 2. I think the majority of player (I mean me in our case) would want to make unmanned launch vehicle sooner. Also, from a point of view of verisimilitude the RC module is larger than the OKTO2 which would require miniaturization. Also, for the thermometer... I really DON'T understand why people would accept it to be more high-tech than the Mystery Goo. And it's not only a question of pseudo-realism, as a matter of gameplay at the start of a career game you are going to be flying everywhere around KSC trying to use as much as possible the radio and gather as much data as you can, But the Mystery Goo is a one use/always recover tools. If only my opinion mattered I would have all light&reusable science instrument available as soon as technologically credible (also that's what new player are more likely to be able to stuck on the Mun than several canister they hoped to recover) Last I would have put the TTA-18 stability enhancer as a Tier 4 technology with every single part as a prerequisite, just saying. I said "that joke" aside, not all meh... it would feel fake difficulty to me. Scientists "discover" stuff accidentally, Engineers find practical solution to problems. I know we are using "science" to fund their engineering but that's an acceptable break from reality (or until someone find a revolutionary solution) Also, the reason we wanted an Open-system in the first place was to avoid being asked to grind science to get to the part we really wanted.

About the [shock Cone] : Nothing say we have to keep its mass as a penalty when we can use a game mechanic and twist other parameter. In any case, we can rework the number. What's important is that it ask for a fair speed beyond the reach of Basic-jet and not too easy to reach with turbojet. I didn't suggested a "progressive" solution where intake work at all altitude with various efficiency for two reasons : # First in term of gameplay it would simplify greatly design and piloting without handing-out miracle-engine at all, it give a clear demarcation for the speed of sound, and lastly because the limited number of parts available do not actually allow the fine-tuning of intake-area vs drag to make a design both sleek & efficient. Knowing what you can count on would also simplify more exotic design such as rocket-ramjet-plane (or tail-sitter turbo-rocket-plane) and lastly, give greater meaning to "technological progression" by making physically impossible to air-breath your way to orbit without the right technology. # Second it happen that real intakes must in fact be distincly shaped in order to work at 3 main regimes. - At subsonic speed you compress air and burn fuel at subsonic speed, no big deal. - Around supersonic speed, to compress air normally you must first slow it down to do so, hence different intake. - Faster you can compress speed at supersonic speed, but with a special intake that can't compress below. Then you can slow it down to burn it at subsonic speed. - Finally at hypersonic speed you need this special intake and a special engine to compress & burn fuel at supersonic speed. This is what got me to abstract a game-mechanic around 3 regimes. In reality there's more than that, but if we went too realistic we would require variable [shock cone] and also some exotic cryogenic-MHD engine (joke : the working of both are mutually exclusive) to even get close to orbital velocity using only air-breather. For your question : I took aside the [intake fuselage], [engine nacelle] and [radial engine body] as mostly "buff" because they were made like that. Frankly myself I would prefer to remake them entirely. Hypothetically speaking we could use the concept for : - A fuel-to-thrust buff, call it post-combustion or something and it would give -if activated- a massive boost of thrust to a linked engine (ideal for tail-sitter). - a mk1 internal compressor, which would give a linked [shock cone] the ability to compress air at subsonic speed, but deactivate near hypersonic. Giving the ability to fly from ground to orbit with only a [shock cone]+[Rapier] at the cost of some mass (its mostly design flexibility but with savant tuning I bet we can make it privileged for a task), Realistically the RAPIER would have one. - let's go exotic and say cryogenic cooling for the last one, if you don't know what I am referring to, google "Sabre Engine", such system is also what would make the RAPIER work. In our case, it could use electricity to also give a buff, but without using fuel this time.

This idea came to me as a simple "what if" when discussing Aerodynamic Revamp. My suggestion : Minimal and Maximal velocity ranges for both jet engine and intake It follow a logic of Gameplay first, Realism second. In term of gameplay it is meant to balance air-breathing SSTO around making max speed depend directly of parts types more than their quantity, offering the same feature (game dynamic) without penalizing design variety. In term of realism it is backed up by the need of distinct engines/intake design to operate at subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic regimes at which the aerodynamic act differently (ask if you want more explanations) > The typical jet engine we know, Airliner, are meant to work best purely below supersonic speed. Their intake take subsonic airflow Then a complex turbine compress the air (why ? Air=mass, if you can expel more mass at once you get more thrust) An lastly fuel is used for combustion All this happen at subsonic speed and actually most of the thrust come from Larger-fan that use energy from the engine to move air that isn't compressed or burned. > Supersonic plane (Air-fighter, Concorde or Tupolev-144) must cross the "sound barrier" which is a big deal Their intake (variable sometime) must first break the shockwave that happen at supersonic speed So Air compression combustion can still happen as before. Now since you are supersonic you can't really use Larger-fan (we tried), so it use a lot of fuel. > "Super/Hypersonic" ramjet engine, are rarer, we can't really call SR-71 like it but its engine make a good example. A Ramjet intake this time don't slow down the airflow, they use its particular dynamic (which mean this intake can't compress at subsonic speed) To compress air at supersonic speed (in our example the SR-71 switch between the two way of compressing air) However combustion itself still happen just below supersonic speed (because we can't do otherwise) This process is only possible because air dynamic change at those speed. > "Hypersonic" SCramjet Now we are talking Supersonic all the way. Air compression & combustion happen beyond supersonic speed What all this mean is that common jet-liner engine/air-fighter engine would simply choke beyond the speed at which they meant to operate. While purely hypersonic engine on the opposite are ill-suited at low speed, they just cannot work AT ALL. Expected result : Proposition 1 Circular intake + basic jet = efficient but subsonic speed only Ram intake + basic jet = subsonic to early supersonic Ram intake + turbojet = subsonic to efficient supersonic Shock cone + turbojet = inefficient subsonic to near orbital speed Ram intake + rapier = inefficient subsonic to efficient hypersonic Shock cone + rapier = early supersonic to orbital speed [Circular intake] = [Radial intake] = choke at supersonic [Ram intake] = [structural intake] = operate at all speed [shock cone] = choke below supersonic In short you have an equivalent choice between Turbojet+rocket or RAPIER to reach orbit Using turbo-jet engine for tail-sitter SSTO rocket would not suffice unless you use more set of engine. Proposition 2 Circular intake + basic jet = efficient but subsonic speed only Ram air intake + basic jet = subsonic to early supersonic Ram air intake + turbojet = subsonic to efficient supersonic Shock cone + turbojet = inefficient subsonic to inefficient hypersonic Ram air intake + Rapier = supersonic to efficient hypersonic Shock cone + Rapier = supersonic to orbital speed [Circular intake] = [Radial intake] = choke at supersonic [Ram air intake] = [structural intake] = operate at most speed [shock cone] = choke below supersonic In short it would be slightly harder to reach orbit using Turbojet+rocket, but once you use Turbo+RAPIER it become very easy. Using turbo-jet engine for tail-sitter SSTO is less likely to be efficient unless you use more set of engine. How ? Notes : Number given purely for demonstration, I didn't bother recalculating Kerbin local Mach number. - Considering the turbojet as a dandy turbo-jet+scramjet - I'm using the RAPIER as a makeshift Scramjet engines in case SQUAD isn't planning more engine type. Jet engine : Basic jet (0 to 700m/s) / (0 to 500m/s) Turbojet (0 to 2000m/s) / (0 to 1500m/s) RAPIER (0 to 2200m/s) / (1300 to 2700m/s) Intake : [Radial intake], [Circular intake] = (0 to 300m/s) [Ram air intake], [structural intake*] = (0 to 2000m/s) [shock cone] = 1000 to 2700m/s) *the choice to consider [structural intake] as all-range is to allow a plane design with a [shock Cone] without requiring a [Ram air intake], Postscript about altitude and pressure : Normally altitude and temperature change engine efficiency, in our case, simplifying with drag alone shouldn't change the balance. Unless the new aerodynamic model is really, really very different. Also I don't know for other but I consider that 1 annular intake should be able to fully feed 1 similarly sized jet-engine at their optimal altitude. Edit : Another thing for sure, we NEED a definite altitude limit for each intake to avoid the need to spam intake. You would only need more intake to reach said-above optimal altitude. But a well designed spaceplane would switch to its high-altitude intake before that. Edit : I took aside the [intake fuselage], [engine nacelle] and [radial engine body] as mostly "buff" because they were made like that. Frankly myself I would prefer to remake them entirely. Hypothetically speaking we could use the concept for : - A fuel-to-thrust buff, call it post-combustion or something and it would give -if activated- a massive boost of thrust to a linked engine (ideal for tail-sitter). - a mk1 internal compressor, which would give a linked [shock cone] the ability to compress air at subsonic speed, but deactivate near hypersonic. Giving the ability to fly from ground to orbit with only a [shock cone]+[Rapier] at the cost of some mass (its mostly design flexibility but with savant tuning I bet we can make it privileged for a task), Realistically the RAPIER would have one. - let's go exotic and say cryogenic cooling for the last one, if you don't know what I am referring to, google "Sabre Engine", such system is also what would make the RAPIER work. In our case, it could use electricity to also give a buff, but without using fuel this time. Edit : About design About the possibility that it might be confusing for people. The term : Subsonic / Supersonic / Hypersonic seem straightforward enough to put in the part name to explain the difference. Giving the speed range in meter per second seem also ok as it can be seen on the Navball

Know that docking port can decouple thing that themselves don't have a docking port. Meaning you can attach a probes by its engine. Be careful at the orientation of it control part.

From my point of view KSP was never meant to be what we call a "simulator". It's realistic perk are meant to give a unique game experience but fun design and gameplay are at its core. At a fundamental level it cannot be both realistic and fun equally, it require do gameplay simplification and abstraction to be humanely playable, even if you happen to live in a world where most 12 years old can design their own real interplanetary rocket after school. And this isn't a bad things at all. The unrealism of KSP is why we can launch a rocket manually in 5 minutes, control spaceplane at hypersonic speed and the like. With too realistic setting would come things were nature isn't letting us have our cake and eat it. But if you seek realism, search for a game that sacrifice accessibility for realism. Like say Orbiter.

I as said, I would take your picture as a concept demonstration rather than a route plan to polish. It's expected to go through many change, Engines stats are going to change with the upgrade of the Aerodynamic model, new parts are to be expected, all might create new dynamic susceptible to ask for a reorder. Also one token guy might consider the Dockport .jr should come first as it is technologically less advanced...etc Plus, in the end it's SQUAD who will have the last words.

Nice work, now that's something I would actually be interested of playing with. Sincerely, I wouldn't worry much about order and balance, not only people will disagree on a few point but news parts with new interaction, and another tiers not-yet-added (if I remember) make it subject to big change. A few remark : Myself I would actually support multiple prerequisites for a few carefully chosen part. Yes, that's surprising coming from someone who loath the bundles we have now, but a few parts isn't a big cost for the following reasons : - Encouraging new players to try out new part they wouldn't think to unlock first. - As a balance mechanism (limiting minimaxing even though R&D tier take care of that at 80%) - Minimal verisimilitude (less people complaining about unrealistic tech order.) I thing the way we could make sense of wing parts would be to put the wing form that are "the most practical" (in term of achieving exactly the wing profile you want) on later tier. For example, it would be impossible without clipping (which can intersect inside cargo-bay) to obtain more than 45% Delta wing. As for structural part, from my opinion they should be nearly all unlockable in Tier 1 except for those based upon 2.5m, 3.75m, mk2 and mk3 structure (which would be prerequisite) My 2cents

If find the demonstration above convincing, especially this part : Reworking the Tech-tree to allow less frustrating unlock of the right parts (still in a balanced way) would certainly solve the problem. KSP new system is indeed making the game harder and favoring a lot manned mission, but it give Career mode an actual progression.

With such a system I expect a lot of spaceplane prototype surviving a failed launch and falling into water at the end of the runway. I'm not really interested in boat, but more clemency toward emergency plane landing would be appreciable. Also there IS a few real spaceplane proposal who relied on waterlanding.

That's a very good question. We shouldn't make change just for the sake of more realism if it only complicate the gameplay needlessly. Myself I would suggest that combined with "Deep Space Refueling" feature you could create an potentially interesting game-mechanic where it is easier to obtain LF-only for such propulsion than LF and Oxidizer. However it is not strictly needed in any way and kind of low priority to me.

I don't see a problem with starting with plane because (1) that's realist, (2) there's a lot of biomes on Kerbin. Once the tech-tree get reworked -hopefully toward a more choice based architecture- it should be more than balanced to allow plane without going straight into spaceplane.

Got to recognize it's pretty inconclusive. I will try to format my answer toward a neutral stop, After that I will follow Xaiier's step. There's a world of difference between "assuming" and "as long as". You and other here are assuming "more realism" will translate into "easy & more fun", assuming "many player would like that" thus implying "so more realism cannot lead to anything wrong" It would be pretty easy to come up with a situation where added complexity (for the sake of realism) lead to something unplayable. "As long as" however justly point out that there is an upper limit to how "complex/realist" you can make a system before it become unplayable. Kind of my and Xaiier's point. As rules of thumb we don't assume they are a majority or representative of whom the game must be designed for. That's a total overconfidence in your own skills. And another one of the things I'm warning against here. You are talking like a kid who played a video-game that looked realist and believe it will count in a meaningful way if he tried to do the real thing. I'll agree on your case-study of reenactor but for other people there is in fact such a thing as "enough realism". A video game's goal is specifically to make fun experiences that are not realistically accessible globally to the player-base, be it stopping a alien invasion single-handedly, designing a lego-spaceship that work or piloting an hypersonic plane without computer-assist.