Wallygator

Jebs stranded on Ike. Bill and bob just arrived in a rescue craft in orbit. They decided to wait till after new year to link up and return home.

What? The OP asks the question... will KSP get more realistic? My response supports that it will not unless some basic physics elements are fixed. This is not about an individual player making choices about what mod(s) to install.

Keeping it on topic... It's not about "earth technology" it's about the basic level of realism likely to benefit the game while maintaining playability AND credibility. My vote is for an improved aero/drag model.

The bottom line here is the ladders are still a bit kludgey. If takes a half dozen posts to explain how get a kerbal off the top of a ladder onto a horizontal platform then there is something missing in the game. It's not a bug persay, but rather a bit that still needs to be developed properly.

Holy bejeebus!!! I wish you all the best of luck on this venture... Wow!!!

A slightly more visceral argument for a slightly higher realism factor (not total realism)... I'm 54. I grew up on Mercury, Vostok, Gemini, Apollo, Estes... So when I built my model rockets I tested them and learned how they reacted to drag and thrust. Right now KSP is like bizarro rocket world. I would have never gotten a rocket to go straight in the air if I used ksp as a learning tool in 1967. All I want for Christmas in 2015 is a proper drag / aero model. Everything else can be cartoon + mods.

The experience system. Total miss. If a Kerbal makes it to mun, then the he keeps the knowledge to himself forever??? No updates to a training regime which lets the program pass the experience on to new Kerbals? Our KSP dev team is really great and I appreciate all the great updates in .90 but on the experience bit they totally missed the mark. Sorry boys. Do over.

Just checked it out. Really nice. I think that makes total sense. Going to install it.

I spotted a reference to KSP a few years ago on boing boing dot net. It stuck in my mind for awhile until I finally purchased .21 - never tried the demo, just bought it. Best purchase I've made in years.

IMHO higher levels of realism do not inhibit ease of game play. Additive UI elements, tutorials, difficulty settings and appropriate balancing of non-physics elements (costs, performance, reliability, experience and training, etc.) can all contribute to an enjoyable play environment in conjunction with improved physics realism. To be slightly more evocative, I feel too many people fail to appreciate the value of strong realistic physics. Keeping things too simplistic will ultimately lead to KSP being relegated to a lower standing in the long term. There is no reason this game cannot combine a fun comical flare with a solid real physics backbone. No excuses.

I'm just finishing up a "Highly grindy" (Hard) mode career (actually custom as I enable revert and quick save to offset the ongoing osx anomalies) My Observations: - Its not that "hard" just laborious. - The part count, weight and navigation limitations really do add some really entertaining early game challenges - there is great possibility here for greater balancing and associated fun. The 18 ton 30 part mun missions are a real hoot and quite fulfilling when they work out - frustrating when they don't. - Once I complete the tech tree (2 more nodes to go) then what? Still a lot of science to gain for sure, but how best to leverage that? Perhaps I could enact a few strategies that let me convert science points for money, but that seems trite when considering what should now evolve into an endgame focused on complex and long term exploration. -Finally, finding ways to fund your fantastic missions is going to be really quite a chore, as eventually the "test everything everywhere for a few thousand funds" and "plant your 1000th flag will erode your brain and interest. Fine Print clearly adds width the sea of contracts, but it does't add much depth. Perhaps once you complete the tech tree in career mode you might be given an option (in game) to cover the save to a science only sandbox. Just a thought.

Works for me. I like it. Only one question... Could a crewman carry along a selection of chip sets and swap out as required?

Just be brave. Send out really small lightweight probes with the basic science devices you currently have. Keep them small and your launch costs will be manageable. The science you get in return will be good. Remember, "early career" benefits from small lightweight everything.

The ability to tweak certain part sizes as an unlockable tech node would be a great addition to later career play. Fractional tank and pod selections could be easily baked into this.

^ I am completely in support of kipard on this one. Well stated. Rep to you! I consider the stayputnick a perfect early game basic probe. Well done devs for nurfing it appropriately. Adding too much sas capability early in the tree is out of balance imho.

Sorry mate. I responded to this thread early on. This in an opinion thread. All perspectives are valid. Contracts are usually legal documents. If there is leeway to interpret or extend them to ones benefit and still complete the intent then that is completely acceptable. Props to the devs for allowing play flexibility.

It's not an exploit. Consider the need to reprogram vehicle components mid flight. It's all acceptable. Cost effective. And it's compleyely in line with optimizing the payback for any given launch.

I would suggest a parallel line of vostock, soyuz-esque pods, 1 2 and 3 man with built in SAS as a homage to the soviet programme. they might cost differently to balance it all out, but that would be a nice set of options peppering the tech tree.

^ This. Mr. Manley has my respect. However, I feel that after paying KSP for quite awhile we all develop our own unique design and play styles. I find I no longer look to youtube for inspiration now, but rather find my own interesting challenges and objectives. I wish I had the time and resources to create my own vids, but alas, it is not to be... Oh... I thinks I made it to level 5.5 but usually revert to 4.5 due to time constraints. Als,oI suggest you disassociate the need to create mods for the game as a prerequisite for increasing your relative player level - If so I would be a level 5 or 6 player and a level 1 modder ;-) since I know blender a bit and did actually create new part for importing into Unity - it was worthless, but nonetheless...

Not an exploit. Definitely not. Reprogramming vehicle software inflight is a matter of fact and need. Even if it's part of a test contract in my opinion.

Usually, a game is intended to be immersive. If a player has to exit the environment to achieve some level of basic administration to support further game play, then a fundamental game mechanic is probably broken. In this instance, yes... it's broken or has never properly existed - there are workarounds but there is still an opportunity to provide a more elegant solution. I support any requests for a more refined game save/restore function in-game.

sounds good. I'll make the edit.

Thanks! and to clarify... 1) Yes, I am suggesting that the current science and reputation system could be further enhanced (with better gameplay) with a more sensible training/experience mechanic. 2) No, I do not envision it being more expensive to train new kerbals in comparison with already experienced Kerbals, rather it would allow a player to obtain experienced Kerbals at a cost in line with the programs stage of advancement (obviously some balancing would be required to get this exactly right) 4) Yes, the persistance data needs to be leveraged more intelligently for sure - Totally agree!

What would have happened if the only way to space was the result of single being gaining enough experience to pilot a space ship? Yuri Kerman and Alan Kerman would probably be the only folks to travel the heavens. This due to the fact that it would be cheaper and more reliable to just keep sending them up to get more proficient rather than to spread the risk. If they died, then oh dear… we have to start from scratch all over again. I assume you think the above would be a ridiculous scenario. But it isn’t in KSP. I feel this is a core game play issue which could be addressed. 1) Kerbal experience should not be aligned to a single Kerbal but rather to the entirety of the space program. Each time you “push the envelope†your program should gain levels of experience. 2) As a program gains experience, the cost of training kerbals increases. If you lose a kerbal then training up a new one gets ever so much more expensive as your program progresses. Effectively, as you learn more, your training regime becomes deeper, more intensive and also costs more. I do not envision it being more expensive to train new kerbals in comparison with already experienced Kerbals, rather it would allow a player to obtain experienced Kerbals at a cost in line with the programs stage of advancement (obviously some balancing would be required to get this exactly right. 3) As a result, if you recruit a new pilot and spend the money to train ‘em up, then you can expect a fully capable crewman with all the abilities present considering the stage of your programs advancement. At the same time, this crewman is also quite valuable considering the training investment. 4) A kerbals’ individual accomplishments must be tracked. The more a Kerbal accomplishes as an individual then the more program reputation is lost if the Kerbal is KIA. (Perhaps Apollo 11 and Yuri were not sent back to space because the risk of losing them was considered to be too great). 5) If single Kerbal gains a bit of additional experience (which is then applied to the overall program) which leaves other kernels with lesser capabilities, then the lesser kernels should be allowed to return to the astronaut complex to undergo further training and investment to allow them to take on the new knowledge. 6) All other elements of Kerbal pilot, science and engineer skills could be retained as is - although obviously these will be further refined as the Devs get a better handle on skills and capabilities through the beta adjustment. Now.. Please discuss…

MODERATOR ----> Request thread be moved to appropriate section and also be closed since this is a legacy bug issue which was already reported.