What's happened to the Kerbal SPACE Program?

[technicalfool]

...because most of the essential parts require something like B9.

I dunno, I've been having fun.

The new SPP parts aren't exactly devoid of opportunity either.

Sure, you can go highly modded RSS/FAR (and SpaceY lifters in this case) if you want, but it's not like the game requires mods to be fun. If it did, I wouldn't have bought it!

[Uncle Mort]

...And since you're asking for station parts, I'd recommend checking out Rune's Von-Braun Station, stock parts, looks amazing. But you'll have to dirty your hands with *gasp* spaceplane parts!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109477-Von-Braun-Station-Part-friendly-gorgeous-docking-hub

So quit yer whining, more parts are better for everyone, even if you don't use them for what they were originaly intended for.

Surely in a space game it's the plane builders who should be dirtying their hands using a large range of rocket parts?

[tetryds]

No, it's not easier to make aircraft, at all.

The thing is that it takes no more than a few minutes to test an aircraft then bring it back to the drawing board and fix it, which allows you to learn a lot more on the process, which makes it seem easier.

Trying a mission on a rocket without any sort of assists or indicators (which we will also get) can take several hours for you to notice you won't make it to the destination, which is frustrating, and the action peaks (landing, docking, etc.) fade out with time as you gain experience.

Yes, I am one of those nearly planes-only player, and even more than that, I hardly ever even go higher than 15km up in the sky, but does that make my KSP less KSP than anyone else's? not at all.

KSP is not limited to rockets, it has never been, an overhauled aero adds much more to the game than simply making your rockets flip if you do it wrong, or allowing actual gravity turns.

Another thing is that piloting airplanes is a whole different thing if compared to piloting rockets, the rocket part of the game is planning, the atmospheric part is more reaction skill oriented.

Which makes complete sense to me, SSTOs, while not my favorite, offer the full experience you can get on the game, with such updates half of that experience will be heavily enhanced.

Yes there are tons of spaceplane "dedicated" parts, and several rocket parts are missing, but that does not drive the game out of its scope, it's a sandbox game.

And as proven on this thread, those parts are useful on space too, while rockets-only parts can be not that flexible.

My point of view is that SQUAD clearly noticed that people love playing with airplanes and is giving more attention to that specific area of the game, on space the current parts didn't really limit the players, but for aircraft it did.

So, I see that 1.0 is expanding to all sides, more towards the least developed one, like it has always been.

I don't really feel like the features list includes everything I would like to see in the game, but that does not mean the SPACE experience is being left aside.

Edited February 21, 2015 by tetryds

[Kibble]

I agree, OP. I bought the game cause I like rockets, but every single update makes air-breathing single stage to wherever you want spaceplanes better, and rockets less favorable in every aspect of gameplay.

[WhiteKnuckle]

Cue elephant in the room:

Pull up Youtube and the vast majority of videos are about aircraft of some kind or another. Pull up random screenshots on Steam and they tend to be aircraft. Ask new players what they're doing, and over 50% will say "building a shuttle," after which the majority will give up and build a plane instead.

Makes sense, doesn't it? It's easier to make aircraft than it is to dare to go beyond LKO. It takes less time to cycle through ships/crashes, it's fancier to look at, and for most people there's "more to do" since many of the difficulties in spaceflight are either missing or don't strike new players as being justified: Who needs to worry about orbital eccentricity when you can stick to good ol' fashioned up and down, high and low, ground and sky? I get the impression that the relatively silent majority doesn't touch rockets nearly as much as people think around here. And apparently some of the would-be Youtube personalities get this because they keep churning out plane after plane in FAR, usually emphasizing how it's modeled after some combat aircraft or another.

For me (and quite a few others) it was the other way around. Started building rockets, went everywhere in the solar system, got bored, and only then started playing around in the SPH.

Now I still go interplanetary, I just do so on the back of a spaceplane. Rockets are just too easy/boring.

Surely in a space game it's the plane builders who should be dirtying their hands using a large range of rocket parts?

Oh trust me, we do. If you've been playing for a few versions like I have then you'll remember when there were no Mk2 or Mk3 parts, so any spaceplane you built was just a rocket with some wings bolted on.

I know the value of using every part available. Maybe you should give it a shot before you just write it off without trying it.

[Uncle Mort]

Oh trust me, we do. If you've been playing for a few versions like I have then you'll remember when there were no Mk2 or Mk3 parts, so any spaceplane you built was just a rocket with some wings bolted on.

I know the value of using every part available. Maybe you should give it a shot before you just write it off without trying it.

I too have been playing for several versions (0.18.2 upwards) and have used and abused plane parts. Please don't make assumptions.

It just seems to me that recently the plane making side of the game has been getting all the attention to the detriment of the rocket side. Maybe to some that attention was warranted but I really would like to see some fresh living/cargo/colonisation parts added.

[WhiteKnuckle]

I too have been playing for several versions (0.18.2 upwards) and have used and abused plane parts. Please don't make assumptions.

Well then you should be happy you get more parts to abuse!

[it just seems to me that recently the plane making side of the game has been getting all the attention to the detriment of the rocket side.

Again, it's because the plane side was sooooooo far behind the rocket side. It's just now catching up.

Maybe to some that attention was warranted but I really would like to see some fresh living/cargo/colonisation parts added.

Me too!

Don't worry, it's not like the game stops at 1.0 They're going to keep making the game deeper and more expansive. That's what makes KSP so good. I for one hope they implement some sort of basic life support system so there's a reason to make stations/big interplanetary ships/colonies.

[regex]

Kind of agree, kind of don't. The stock wing system is absolute garbage so I don't bother with planes in stock-ish installs. Furthermore, FAR highlights some real difficulties with actual spaceplanes (namely that stock makes them #LOLEASYMODE) and I'm hoping we'll see similar in 1.0's overhaul and rebalancing because stock jet engines are far more OP than even the 48-7S, and stock (not really) aerodynamics makes them incredibly easy to fly.

[Vanamonde]

They can't do everything in every update. One version concentrated on new planets, another gave us larger rocket parts, and recently they've turned their attention to aircraft because of a great deal of player demand. This does not signify a change in the course of the game's development.

[Torquemadus]

I'm expecting 1.0 to hurt jet engines due to the changes to ISP in atmosphere.

Rocket engines in atmosphere will produce more thrust at higher altitudes. Jet engines produce less ISP at higher altitudes, so they should therefore produce less thrust at higher altitudes. This, accompanied by the rebalance in engine performance, should help to make SSTOs less OP and rockets more attractive. This in turn should lead to more demand from players for better rocket parts.

ISRU could help to rebalance the economics of the game. At the moment, everything we use has to get lifted from Kerbin, so designing efficient launch vehicles is vital to the game's economics. Before funds were implemented in KSP, the most "efficient" launch vehicle was an asparagus lifter. When cost became important, SSTOs became the most "efficient", because they reduced launch costs. ISRU will reduce the need for giant interplanetary spaceships and on-orbit assembly, but will also increase the desirability of bases and stations, which in turn will increase player demand for more parts to build those bases with.

I anticipate that there will be a future patch that deals with base building. This will probably coincide with the implementation of life support, where players will have to take into account how to keep their kerbals alive on long duration missions. Players would establish a base to support exploration by providing their kerbals with a place to go to replenish their fuel and consumables.

[technicalfool]

Furthermore, FAR highlights some real difficulties with actual spaceplanes (namely that stock makes them #LOLEASYMODE)

Ish.

Personally I found this one not too difficult to throw together in 5 minutes:

I'm not sure if you'd call it a "spaceplane", as it's not SSTO.

But it's a damn fine "start horizontally on the runway, finish in orbit" satellite delivery system. Must say FAR's stall model, while still a bit screwy, is a whole lot easier to deal with than the oh-god-flip-flip-flip-crash "stall" model of stock aero.

(And the first person who uses this post as an excuse to say that you must use FAR gets one (1) free slap).

[Technical Ben]

First off I’ll admit I don’t do aircraft or spaceplaces; up to the point where I don’t even upgrade the SPH or the runway.

Having said that, the recent upgrades and the much heralded version 1 (hurrah!) seem to be overdoing the “aero†side of the game and neglecting the “space†side of the Kerbal Space Program. I now have loads of cockpits, cargo bays and passenger modules for aircraft but still have to resort to using the “hitchhiker†for all my space stations, bases and spacecraft passenger modules. The cupola and research module do add a bit of variety but not enough.

Now I read about even more (and much bigger!) wing parts on way, as if there isn’t enough already. Enough is enough, let’s have more (and bigger) space modules for living, storage and even colonisation.

Before I get inundated with links to various mods please note I’m saying that calling the next upgrade Version 1 implies a certain amount of completeness, and it ain’t so.

And a two-Kerbal capsule would be nice as well.

All launches hit the atmosphere first. Fixing Aero will fix launches. While some think it will make it too "easy", things like fuel flow fixes and new mission contracts will increase the hardness/rebalance before the last part rebalancing later.

[Dodgey]

I too have been playing for several versions (0.18.2 upwards) and have used and abused plane parts. Please don't make assumptions.

It just seems to me that recently the plane making side of the game has been getting all the attention to the detriment of the rocket side. Maybe to some that attention was warranted but I really would like to see some fresh living/cargo/colonisation parts added.

And other updates will focus on other parts of the game, it makes more sense to concentrate on certain aspects of the game for a certrain update then it is to split it up over multitude of updates (mostly exceptions apply). Vanamonde hit it on the head I just wanted to pitch in.

[Frozen_Heart]

The aero side of the game was so far behind the space side it needs some catching up.

We've had:

1.25m part retextures

probe parts

2.5m parts

docking

3.75m parts

asteroids

while the aero side pretty much remained identical since 0.13.

I'm not sure how that counts as neglecting rockets to only focus on planes. It good that we are finally getting focus on that for once.

[Uncle Mort]

The aero side of the game was so far behind the space side it needs some catching up.

It's caught up and so surpassed it that KSP is now more of a flight simulator than a space game.

[regex]

I'm not sure if you'd call it a "spaceplane", as it's not SSTO.

Excuse me, I meant SSTO spaceplanes. Yes, you can slap one together fairly easily under FAR, but getting it to orbit is trickier than stock.

Also, carry some cargo to space. Something substantial like, say, an orange tank. This is standard fare for stock SSTOs, I found it pretty tough using FAR, mainly because the jet engines were properly nerfed.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

KSP, A FLIGHT simulator?!

Let me laugh at that for a moment. (Hue Hue Hue). Anyway, no KSP is not becoming a flight simulator at all. Aerodyanmics are major to "normal" rockets, and to SPACE planes. Infact, it's the biggest challenge SPACE agency's face.

[Red Iron Crown]

Infact, it's the biggest challenge SPACE agency's face.

How do you figure that? Even if we ignore non-physical challenges (by a large margin the biggest challenge they face is getting funded), atmospheric effects basically only matter for the first 5-10 minutes of most spaceflights (and some additional time at the end if they're being recovered). Temperature extremes, energy generation, orbit perturbations, signal delay, radiation, life support, and above all the tyranny of the rocket equation are bigger challenges for space operations.

[TheMoonRover]

How do you figure that? Even if we ignore non-physical challenges (by a large margin the biggest challenge they face is getting funded), atmospheric effects basically only matter for the first 5-10 minutes of most spaceflights (and some additional time at the end if they're being recovered). Temperature extremes, energy generation, orbit perturbations, signal delay, radiation, life support, and above all the tyranny of the rocket equation are bigger challenges for space operations.

However launching a rocket goes through a significant chunk of the delta-V for the mission, and building a suitable launcher is generally more complicated than building the payload itself, especially with realistic aerodynamics. In a stock game, you don't have to worry about most of those things, whereas you do have to worry about aerodynamics

-- Updated --

My personal opinion is that the variety of aircraft/spaceplane parts and the variety of rocket parts were well balanced before career mode appeared, although larger wings and perhaps an engine would have been nice for Mk3. The addition of the RAPIER engine in 0.23 was what made me decide to try out spaceplanes. Then the NASA parts in ARM definitely made rockets look more attractive. With SPP integration, spaceplanes are still behind the rockets, but not by as much. In 0.90, I haven't even tried building a Mk3 plane because there aren't really suitable wings, landing gear or jet engines. So those are still needed for 1.0 to bring the range of spaceplane and rocket parts to a fairly even par again, although spaceplanes will be favourable. Then, attention should return to rockets.

Edited February 22, 2015 by TheMoonRover

[WhiteKnuckle]

It's caught up and so surpassed it that KSP is now more of a flight simulator than a space game.

I know British humor is sometimes hard for us Yanks to get, but this is freaking hilarious!

I must have missed the class in flight school where they talk about aerodynamic nosecones making planes slower, and how wings can be put inside the cargo bay and still make lift! And now that the KSP Flight Simulator has shown that control surfaces can propel a vessel to interplanetary speeds we should have flying cars in no time!

I wonder if Boeing knows about this. We should tell them to ditch their flight simulation software and just get a copy of KSP.

[Renegrade]

How do you figure that? Even if we ignore non-physical challenges (by a large margin the biggest challenge they face is getting funded), atmospheric effects basically only matter for the first 5-10 minutes of most spaceflights (and some additional time at the end if they're being recovered). Temperature extremes, energy generation, orbit perturbations, signal delay, radiation, life support, and above all the tyranny of the rocket equation are bigger challenges for space operations.

True - it's no match for things like funding or the rocket equation. However, getting AROUND the atmosphere on launch is a pretty big cost. Earth launches are something like 9.5km-10.5km/s from the launchpad, but if it were an airless world, the launch costs to a 400km^2 (heh) orbit would only be around 7.5km/s. It's certainly not the biggest challenge, but a lot of the initial gravity drag losses are actually because you're aiming upwards to get over the atmosphere...

I must have missed the class in flight school where they talk about aerodynamic nosecones making planes slower, and how wings can be put inside the cargo bay and still make lift! And now that the KSP Flight Simulator has shown that control surfaces can propel a vessel to interplanetary speeds we should have flying cars in no time!

I wonder if Boeing knows about this. We should tell them to ditch their flight simulation software and just get a copy of KSP.

Actually, the new Boeing (Boing!) 797 BorgLiner actually features a completely new design, where they did away with nosecones and external wings entirely (the main body is actually a large cube). Instead, the interior floors are the main lifting surfaces, stacked on top of each other, and the walls are the vertical stabilizer. Also, it makes use of improved specific impulse calculations and has only 6.25% of the fuel consumption of a 787. Since it was discovered that passengers have no mass, it has seating for fifty thousand people. Finally, by reverting to older no-bypass turbojets, it was discovered that the craft can reach suborbital speeds, and can now fly halfway around the world in less than an hour.

A Toronto to China nonstop flight is about thirty minutes, and costs $25/seat. Airbus is finished.

(the 797-400 cargo conversion is fitted with a tiny rocket engine, and can place objects into orbit for about $0.30/ton. It can handle objects roughly the size of a hand-egg field too. COTS is finished too)

[ShadowZone]

I don't really build spaceplanes that much, but I do like the Mk3 parts. For my Jool-5 mission, the main craft was mostly built out of them. I built my Gigagruiser (remember the monstrosity with the interior hull?) mostly with Mk3 parts and I wouldn't consider it a plane

And as mentioned before, a good aero model also adds to the experience of launching any stuff into orbit.

[rcp27]

I think it's not unreasonable that the plane side of the game has had some loving in recent updates, and a few improvements are still needed. The new aerodynamics model is absolutely needed, not just for planes, but also for rockets. The space side of the game is pretty good as it stands, and getting a space plane to work is a fun challenge.

To my mind there is one current limitation to the stock game that, I suspect, the new in-situ resource gathering will make a more irritating problem, and could do with some sort of attention. I can build an orbital space station out of a number of modules with docking and RCS in various methods. Building modular surface bases, though, is a much bigger challenge. To dock modules of surface bases together, though, requires vertically-aligned docking ports and the ability to drive modules together. Rover wheels, either built in to the modules, or on separate assembly vehicles, suffer from suspension travel, so that you never really know whether your docking ports will be vertically aligned when you actually get the modules on location. The problem is worse if you are on a not-very-level surface. With resources being added, I imagine building a mining outpost will become an interesting challenge, but assembling larger surface bases, and loading up the finished product into visiting craft seems to me a real challenge.

I also have a niggling concern about how the new aerodynamics model will impact my ability to launch some of the more pancake shaped utility craft I use in space. I have a tractor design nuclear engined tug designed with engines on pylons to fit a 2.5 m payload behind it with the engines clear of it. I also prefer my landers to have broader bases, so the landers I use for e.g. base construction, tend to be quite broad and flat.

[jake9039]

I think it's not unreasonable that the plane side of the game has had some loving in recent updates, and a few improvements are still needed. The new aerodynamics model is absolutely needed, not just for planes, but also for rockets. The space side of the game is pretty good as it stands, and getting a space plane to work is a fun challenge.

To my mind there is one current limitation to the stock game that, I suspect, the new in-situ resource gathering will make a more irritating problem, and could do with some sort of attention. I can build an orbital space station out of a number of modules with docking and RCS in various methods. Building modular surface bases, though, is a much bigger challenge. To dock modules of surface bases together, though, requires vertically-aligned docking ports and the ability to drive modules together. Rover wheels, either built in to the modules, or on separate assembly vehicles, suffer from suspension travel, so that you never really know whether your docking ports will be vertically aligned when you actually get the modules on location. The problem is worse if you are on a not-very-level surface. With resources being added, I imagine building a mining outpost will become an interesting challenge, but assembling larger surface bases, and loading up the finished product into visiting craft seems to me a real challenge.

I also have a niggling concern about how the new aerodynamics model will impact my ability to launch some of the more pancake shaped utility craft I use in space. I have a tractor design nuclear engined tug designed with engines on pylons to fit a 2.5 m payload behind it with the engines clear of it. I also prefer my landers to have broader bases, so the landers I use for e.g. base construction, tend to be quite broad and flat.

speaking of stuff for the ground, I really think there need to be more rover bodies, and stiffer suspension wheels. better, make suspension tweakable.