To RSS or not to RSS

[prophet_01]

How is ATM preventing you from playing? Also, realism overhaul won't cause any crashes, as it takes up something like 1mb of space. It's pretty easy to have more than ten mods at once, I have something like 100+ in my RSS/RO install.

Astronmers visual pack + ATM causes issues for me. I get a red and white nebular like texture for kerbin and some other textures and graphic features tend to not work/look as intended. Reloading the textures for ATM and messing around with it's configs helps with some problems. The 64bit without ATM works a lot better, but some mods like FAR are locked for 64bit and there are still some 64bit related issues...

Last time I tried RO (without any other mods) it wasn't free of any issues either. I had ingame crashes, a corupted safe and some minor stuff. Nothing too bad, but I don't want to invite more trouble. I do admit that it's been a while since I played RO, those issues might be gone by now.

@QPDO: another pro for RO is that it's more interessting to build replicas. For most players that have looked into real life space programs it feels strange that your launchers are that small. It can break imersion sometimes. Simple ISP tweaks are another way to adress it, but it's still not the same. LEO also feels different with a bigger kerbin/earth.

Edited March 19, 2015 by prophet_01

[regex]

hardware requirements are high

They are not, see my earlier post on a minimal install.

needs a lot of fine tuning with parts, contracts and isp balance wise

For the modders who make it happen, yes, for the player, no.

Yet it also needs almost every mod that is used with RSS/RO to be rebalanced (fuel, life-support, aerodynamics, part sizes, contracts) to allow a satisfying real feeling. But why?

For a more realistic KSP experience, that's why. Where some people see KSP as a game, others see it as a simulator and mod it thusly.

I'd wager to say that players can learn and enjoy a lot more from playing gameplay-elements originating from stock or stock-mod gameplay (logistics (with TAC), rocket design, (space)plane design, orbital mechanics, aerodynamics (with FAR), reentry problems (with DRE) etc.) than they can from playing with RSS/RO

This is interesting because all of the mods you quote here are basically required for an RO install or, in the case of TAC LS, highly recommended. At least with an RO install those mods are much more meaningful

Basically people play RSS/RO so they can build and fly accurate replicas, explore "what if" scenarios and proposals that never materialized, or because they prefer KSP as a simulator. There are probably other reasons. I personally play RSS because it's a fun project to mod and I like pretty much everyone in the subcommunity (I do still contribute even if I'm not maintaining my own anymore), stock just lacks any challenge for me anymore, and because I want to use realistic, simulated hardware on my rockets (and that's just cheating on a tiny, completely unrealistic planet).

LEO also feels different with a bigger kerbin/earth.

Much, much different, even without EVE. Earth is majestic, Kerbin is ... not so much

[SmallFatFetus]

It makes me feel little to be in the company of such great minds...

Instead of an argument about the pros and cons of RSS / RO it all padding the own back about being so rocket scientist.

Cons of RSS / RO (reading this thread)

- Choice and installation of the mod is tedious

- mod dependencies are high

- hardware requirements are high

- needs a lot of fine tuning with parts, contracts and isp balance wise

- mediocre mod compatibility (mostly balance)

- everything takes a lot more time

Pros of RSS / RO (reading this thread)

- steep learning curve

- high motivation on success

- allows to move the game focus more towards simulation/reality

- ?

Sorry but reading the posts doesn't really show more Pros. I'd say that RSS / RO would be used a lot more if it would blend in better/easier with other mods or even stock. Right now it's a niche mod that, compared to FAR/DRE/TAC, doesn't add much to the game. It does indeed add more realism. Yet it adds it to the game where it doesn't add much to the game experience or even learning experience. Please correct me, but the basic requirements in comparison to stock-like gameplay are: invest more time and fiddle together huge rockets out of small parts or mostly use scaled or procedural parts. Yet it also needs almost every mod that is used with RSS/RO to be rebalanced (fuel, life-support, aerodynamics, part sizes, contracts) to allow a satisfying real feeling. But why? I'd wager to say that players can learn and enjoy a lot more from playing gameplay-elements originating from stock or stock-mod gameplay (logistics (with TAC), rocket design, (space)plane design, orbital mechanics, aerodynamics (with FAR), reentry problems (with DRE) etc.) than they can from playing with RSS/RO which basically makes a simplified simulation a lot more tedious. It might let the player feel more hardcore, yet it's seems to me a bit like running your bike on flat tires. You put in a lot of effort and time to get to the same

effect (learning and having fun building and flying rockets) everybody else has.

In the end you are free to do it, as every KSP player has to choose which mods or any he or she uses. Yet it doesn't make you better... just different. That's why I will start a new game (again as on every major update) when the next update is released and choose scaled isp/fuels over a scaled geometry though, as it is easier to implement and compatible what mods I use.

Here's my list. I play with jumbo 3.2x and FAR.

Pros

-Better aerodynamics, without it being too easy to get to orbit

-Planets look better

-Makes me feel cool

-more difficult

Cons

-Still not used to the launch profile (But it is more realistic)

-Every mission takes more time

-Previous missions will lose their encounters and/or crash as planets and orbits scale up

[Pwnstarr]

I don't see anyone arguing that they're better for having RSS/RO. I don't see a pro/con debate, just discussing why we like one flavor or another. Personally, after 2 years of vanilla KSP there's not much left to do, even with game updates. It's nice to have new challenges, I enjoy the new demands on rocket designs and seeing the visual aesthetics of orbiting an expansive planet. As you say, to each their own.

It makes me feel little to be in the company of such great minds...

Instead of an argument about the pros and cons of RSS / RO it all padding the own back about being so rocket scientist.

...

In the end you are free to do it, as every KSP player has to choose which mods or any he or she uses. Yet it doesn't make you better... just different. That's why I will start a new game (again as on every major update) when the next update is released and choose scaled isp/fuels over a scaled geometry though, as it is easier to implement and compatible what mods I use.

[StevenJ]

In 23.5 I tried RSS 10x and felt intimidated by it. Then I started watching twitch and saw Kofeyh, and ShimmyTheJJ playing in RSS 6.4. After watching ShimmyTheJJ complete his Duna adventure, or just before, I installed it myself on a separate build. I can't go back to stock planet sizes! 10x is a bit too big for me because that requires a lot of re balancing of parts, real fuels etc. 6.4x Kerbin is a good middle ground that I find way more fun than stock. It's pretty much all I play now in 0.90

[celem]

RSS 10x with RO/RP-0. It doesnt necessarily mean more parts and lag for your computer. I generally use fewer parts in 10x scale than stock.

In fact I have about 60 mods installed, run it on a laptop without dedicated VRAM and the only crashes are every few hours due to the RAM leaks.

Mods dont add lag, parts add lag. If you go to RSS you can delete 90% of the KSP stock parts (i never use any tank but the pTank, any wing but pWing etc), which probably wont do the job at 10x scale even overhauled by RO without skyrocketing the part-count. So not only can you have low-part ships, you can have a low-part editor. Again...at 10x scale stock parts are pathetic and will make you (and your rig) cry.

I quite like the scale, you are supposed to be a speck in the void

Edited March 22, 2015 by celem

[Bekiekutmoar]

Haven't even touched RSS, mostly because of crappy visuals in the past. However, I haven't looked in the RSS-thread in months and right now it looks surprisingly well ... ! Think I'll install a seperate 'RSS-KSP' with RO soon and find out how different a journey to Mars is compared to a journey to stock-sized Duna.

[Iansoreta]

Stock parts are good only for Stock Solar System cause they are perfectly balanced for worst aerodynamics and worst planetary rescale. RSS makes it more real life size version, therefore the radius of RSS Kerbin (now Earth) is ~6000 km instead of 600 km which is puny. I know stock parts don't work well in RSS, as I notice some of you go easy on RSS solar system with realism overhaul, but I don't care about realism overhaul packs. Stock parts can be pushed to the limit, if I used it correctly. Remember that crossfeed staging can be used except in a different ways, due to aerodynamics (I need aerodynamic plugin for reduced drag, which results in putting a payload to low earth orbit with just 9.4 km/s delta-v), I mean wide rockets are bad, as crossfeed staged rockets are designed this way. Skinny rockets work better because of less drag.