Discovery / doing actual science

[tater]

The first US RTG flew into space 7 weeks and 6 days after the first Mercury flight. (as a reality check). The tech tree is ridiculous.

[Fel]

It's too bad this part of the game isn't moddable.

Is that a challenge?

My C# may be rusty, but I remember enough to know that almost all the code lies unprotected for anyone to access or butcher. Yes, a newbie can't do it (okay, he/she COULD but it would be done poorly; getting into the system requires actual understanding on what C# does and what Unity does, you could hack something together just by reflecting your way around, or pretending to be other classes, but until you know how it actually works you can end up with game breaking problems... and ALWAYS initialize objects before using them).

Even if it was 100% select-case or if-then-else, you could try overriding the container class and write it all from scratch; getting the new code to run would be a matter of hunting down where the class is initialized and replacing each instance with the new class.

I agree completely. I'd much rather have real science and exploration, or a simplification there of, than what Squad decided to go with. Back in 0.18, I envisioned we'd, one day, be able to build the Hubble telescope. Possibly one of the most recognizable pieces of science engineering. I imagined space stations doing long term science experiments and rovers that could do surface analysis on distant worlds. Instead, we got mystery goo and generic science lab.

I feel like this was a huge missed opportunity to introduce people to why science and space exploration is worth doing and what it's actually all about.

The instant they released what they called science, I knew it would never change. I remember this exact thread popping up, "make the planets less visible from the start and require people to do science to discover more about them" and do you know what people said? "Why should I care, I have already seen them all."

I love complexity in video games. I love the idea of doing real science, of even going so far as to have you, the player, try to figure out what the soil is composed of through various chemical processes. I love the idea of you mixing things together that shouldn't be mixed and being punished for it.

I love the idea of having to setup a primitive GPS system (even two sats could, potentially, be a rough enough estimate) before claiming you know exactly where your rover is. Heck, even a single sat just to provide video footage and act as a communications relay would be better than what KSP currently does.

The thing is, too many people don't

- - - Updated - - -

Orbital mapping (insert vehicle into a polar orbit and make XX orbits to map the surface---includes radar mapping). The game is presumably adding more functionality in the game for the late tech tree via resource scanning. Use it FOR SCIENCE! (and gameplay) by having scans free up map zoom down to seeing small hazards with enough data).

Flyby mapping (generates less science broadly, but the amount varies based upon approach distance). With scansat-like stuff in stock, this can merely be a subset of the mapping.

Atmospheric data (currently a thing, but nothing useful comes of it). Have this unlock suggestions about aerobraking? Or it might unlock trajectory paths through the atmosphere for accurate reentries (what that one mod does).

Science from orbit (manned). This would be related to life support if that was a thing, ever (do this kind of science enough and all habitable parts have improvements in LS by some amount).

Parts testing. Certain (better designed from, well, ANY in the current game) parts testing missions might unlock dv information?

If you want to use mechjeb... this is what you'd need to start with. (Yes, can of worms, grow up you all.) Actually doing exploratory science on the places you're visiting in order to create models to accurately represent them. NASA can come up with some fairly accurate data back at home, but before relying on gravity assists or being able to safely land somewhere, they sure as hell are going to have some kind of data to back up "well... it probably will work... only a couple billion dollars... no sweat!"

In this, I mean to say that science would reward you with exactly what it should reward you with. Better ability to navigate the cosmos. Parts designed to land or work under certain conditions (i.e. landing on Duna or taking off from Eve.) More accuracy in the autopilot / predictive paths. Being able to model / execute more complicated maneuvers...

I mean, yes... you could just cheat the system. But you can also just turn on infinite fuel or edit your location.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Fel

[Jexx]

I totally agree with the cameras and telescopes. They could make your first landing on the Mun an even more joyful and wonderful moment, because you would know that all the work would be made by you.

On top of that the telescope-thing also could be made as a KSC building with 3 levels (perhaps between the Tracking Station and the R&D Facility).

Edited April 11, 2015 by Jexx

[Wjolcz]

I hope some day science will be redone and like this.

[moronwrocket]

Kerbal Construction Time allows you to run simulations around planetoids that you have visited with probes, so you can design better later generation vessels. I think they have plans to split this simulation functionality off from KCT, which would make it a perfect addition to this concept.

[Solarspaceprobe]

I want to see this implemented, science isn't just "drop this sensor, oh look it gives us numbers", science is about changing perception, raising questions, and discovering new horizons!

[Solarspaceprobe]

This died?

[John FX]

This topic has been suggested a few times already and we still don't have telescopes, either ground based or in space. I think that is why the thread fizzled out, people don't think anything will come of it.

I'd really like to actually explore the system to find out where the planets are and exactly what their orbit is and what they are made from.

As it is, I just look at the info tab in map view and it's all there.

[tater]

Yeah, it was more animated when we didn't know that 1.0 wasn't coming far in the future, but basically NOW, with no even cursory look at reexamining the fundamental paradigm of science in KSP.

[Fel]

This died?

I don't think people care enough. No matter how you change science, it will always be a grind that lies between you and unlocking all the parts/features/information.

[Mr. Scruffy]

No, Fel, i do care - it´s more like John FX said: Why keep shouting in the storm?

[Fel]

No, Fel, i do care - it´s more like John FX said: Why keep shouting in the storm?

I'm not 100% certain who I was meaning to reference. It wasn't the people who WANTED science to be improved; I think it was the senior players, the people who might talk about science, but then complain about how much of a grind it is.

I feel that the people who want science to become... science... are the minority. The majority just want to blow through it and get their rewards.

I may be wrong though...

[tater]

I'm not 100% certain who I was meaning to reference. It wasn't the people who WANTED science to be improved; I think it was the senior players, the people who might talk about science, but then complain about how much of a grind it is.

I feel that the people who want science to become... science... are the minority. The majority just want to blow through it and get their rewards.

I may be wrong though...

It's the de facto reward system (science points = new tech), so you you are right for many. I think that if they made science useful for gameplay, then "actual science" could be its own reward. All the ideas surrounding ways of using science to learn things about bodies so that you can visit them, for example.

Pipe dream, I suppose.

[xEvilReeperx]

This topic has been suggested a few times already and we still don't have telescopes, either ground based or in space. I think that is why the thread fizzled out, people don't think anything will come of it.

Speaking as a person who monitors these kinds of threads looking for ideas, the space telescope thing isn't enough to get me out of bed because it would be step 0.5 of what I would envision as a 50 step science overhaul. Beyond "you should have a telescope to see details about the planets", nobody has really put forth any ideas of how to make a science system about discovery or actual science.

If I prototyped this telescope thing, would that encourage some more discussion? I know people don't generally use this subforum as a place for mods but I feel that a solid alternative science system might be just the thing to encourage Squad to reexamine their existing system and make some improvements

[SmallFatFetus]

There was a thread about this a few months ago, and I made some mock ups of what it would look like. I'm on mobile so no fancy formatting but here is the link- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112533-Mod-that-makes-planets-and-moons-%28except-for-close-side-of-moon%29-whited-out-until-you-explore-it

SmallFatFetus

[klgraham1013]

This died?

What else is there to say? These threads happen over and over again. Updates pass by and nothing changes. It's really no surprise people get tired of repeating themselves.

[tater]

Discovery would require a sea change. I think it really requires randomly generated solar systems (Kerbin could be basically the same, but with 1 to n moons). Then "fog of war" that only gives the player information he should have. Then have science tied to stuff the player can use (say an aerobraking tool that shows proper trajectories if the player has done certain science at that planet).

[monamipierrot]

Thanks to a comment of Tater in a relatively newer thread of mine:

, I found this one. Couldn't read everything it was written here, however I still want to leave an opinion of mine on the reason why Squad SHOULD definitely do this, I mean the DISCOVERY/EXPLORATION overhaul.

 

I read Felipe's interview (http://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/) on why there are no procedural bodies. I understand the point (creating a community of same-experience players), but this point is inmensely weaker than the point of building a game of actual DISCOVERY (actual science, fog-of-war, procedural bodies).

Some of you said average players are not interested about science. So what? We are not talking about science. We are talking about the discovery experience. Science is just the trick to make it happen. It is just an excuse. And just one of them. And yes, humans knew many of Jupiter's moons 4 hundreds years before the Voyager missions. May I have you notice that we are not green-skinned. And that Kerbol is smaller than the Moon. Come on, we want to pick inspiration from history and reality, not copying it! I can't stand when we debate about "simulation" or "not simulation"... who cares? What we want to "simulate" is just the thrill of discovery. The hard work behind tiny bits of information. Explosions, tragedy, funds, research... all of this is part of it.

And I'm going to tell you another thing. Half of the videogames out there are about discovery. Even first-person-shooters are. Platforms are. "XXXX" wargames are. All RPGs are. Graphical and text adventure are (were). There's something intimately discoverish in many games, and something intimately gamish in many discoveries. Now tell me why should KSP be the only spacefare videogame (regardless of its genre) which has NO discovery in it. Because when I say "today I went to Duna" you will like my FB post? Come on! This doesn't make sense at all, IMHO.

We want KSP to be about discovery because we want it to be fun, and hook us. Not harder or easier, not more or less "simulational". Jus more fun.

Also, a "discovery overhaul" would be a great chance to redesign some not-minor issue of KSP, expecially the introduction of the game to noobs (KSP is the #4 hardest game in this list: http://www.goliath.com/gaming/12-video-games-that-only-super-smart-people-should-play/?cus_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.es%2F). In actual version you just CRASH land in the game and nobody explain you the basics except for some really really basic concept (e.g. Werner von Kerman).

Imagine instead that you HAVE to discover Kerbol. Literally. Gene Kerman could guide you (well, Jeb) outside of the astronaut Complex and tell you how to take a EVA report, as a routine training. And it starts it all: you report a big, round and hot fireball in the Sky. "Hey, I didn't noticed it. It looks like a star, a big one! Let's call it Kerbol". A system message informs you that some basics about Kerbol are now known, and that we have a map of Kerbol. It sounds silly? Yes it is! Also Kerbals' face is silly. And fun. The magic of Kerbal is the blend of silliness and seriousness. It is really Magik.

After we are don with Kerbol, we'll want to do the same with Mun. And the same with Kerbin! when you travel a few miles from the Space center and take a Crew report, you realize Kerbin is round (or whatever it is, I think procedural bodies could be VERY intriguing). Still you don't have a complete map of it, but after each flight some of the map will be disclosed. And so on and so on, till the telescopes, the probes, the pictures, the landings and in situ EVA reports.

Reason to do this: THOUSANDS.

Reason not to do this: I bet it is difficoult. Very difficoult. A complete overhaul of the game interface is needed. But it would be great, no doubt!!! PLEASE SQUAD hire more guys, BELIEVE in this great chance this game has to be one of the best EVER!

[Mjp1050]

@monamipierrot, you're necrothreading... this thread is pre - 1.0

[tater]

Nothing in it has been addressed. Nothing. 

I can repost everything I typed up thread again, and it still applies. I had hoped it would be addressed before 1.0, but we got a double-down on random side quests somehow being a "career."

Edited April 8, 2016 by tater

[eddiew]

*edit* Blargh, I saw April 7 and assumed it was yesterday, not last year 

Still, since discussion seems to be ongoing; there was a mod Research Bodies that did some of what I think you're looking for...

Unfortunately the author hasn't posted since 1.1-pre dropped, so I don't know whether it will be available in future.

Edited April 8, 2016 by eddiew
didn't realise how old the thread was

[Kosmognome]

On 6.4.2015 at 1:25 AM, Twreed87 said:

I know an element of this was at one point talking about as a planned feature, but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time.

What if when you start a new career mode, very little is known about the system. You enter map view, and you can see the side of Mun facing Kerbin, but the side opposite is a complete blur. Duna and Eve are very low resolution, and Eeloo the moons of Jool aren't even there at all. You access the info for these bodies, and much of the information (mass, gravity, atmosphere) is either unknown or an approximation.

In order to unlock this information, you have to do science. There could be a new building at KSC, a telescope, that as you upgrade gives clearer pictures of distant bodies. Orbital telescopes could be constructed that would further this. You could also attach cameras to probes and send them out to the body. Info about the atmosphere of Eve could only be obtained after sending the barometer there and using it, gravity by doing a gravity scan, etc. Imagine being able to click the info box on a body and watch as that information is filled in, as a record of what you've accomplished. It would be a reason to keep doing science after you've unlocked the tech tree, and to make science actually feel like science, instead of just some points you use to get tech.

Thoughts?

I would love that idea, and it is something I have considered modding into the game myself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/3rc7su/is_there_a_mod_that_hides_textures_of_celestial/

 

I want to do it so that you can use ScanSat and Tarsier Telescopes to get more information. Using telescopes would for example add the joolian moons as untextured speheres to the tracking station if you observe them long enough, and then you#d get more and more accurate textures the more you observe. Finally the full resolution textures are only available when using ScanSat to scan the bodies.

 

I am not sure how this all will work out and if it is possible at all, but I feel this would be a major enhancement for KSP. If you also couple it with RemoteTech, so that you need to be able to communicate with your probe, it gets even better.

[Wjolcz]

@monamipierrot your post started off good, but then I saw the part about discovering the sun and stopped reading.

If we want discovery we need telescopes. And not only to discover the bodies around the solar system. I want to track actual sources of strange signals, like pulsars, look at different types of stars, hunt for exoplanets and take sweet pics of galaxies and nebulas with the actual scientific facts and data about them.

[monamipierrot]

On 8/4/2016 at 4:17 AM, Mjp1050 said:

@monamipierrot, you're necrothreading... this thread is pre - 1.0

Then this is a zombiethread because my comment revitalized it

[blorgon]

4 hours ago, Veeltch said:

If we want discovery we need telescopes. And not only to discover the bodies around the solar system. I want to track actual sources of strange signals, like pulsars, look at different types of stars, hunt for exoplanets and take sweet pics of galaxies and nebulas with the actual scientific facts and data about them.

I know you mean you want to do this in game, but you can also actually do this in real life! Have you ever heard of citizen science? I spent a few weeks over winter break cataloging impact craters on the surface of Mars, and tagging potential exoplanets using transit photometry data.

As far as the subject is concerned, somebody upthread (sometime last year ) mentioned that people have "already seen" the Kerbolar System, and that there'd be no point in introducing fog-of-war. I tend to agree with this sentiment. But for the record, I'm all about doing real science in game.

How about a different, procedurally generated planetary system for every new Science Mode save. What they could do is make a pre-determined set of seeds the game could use*, where each one is permanently tied to the progression of save games (Save Game #1 = Planetary System Seed A; Save Game #2 = Planetary System Seed B; et cetera). That way, there'd still be the shared experience that is so important to the community, but would allow a player to start a new save and go on to start exploring system #2 once they have discovered all they can about the current system. And of course, there'd have to be a dedicated sub-forum for each system for the players currently playing in those systems.

Since, you know, this thread is pretty much comprised of pipe-dreams 

 

*What I mean is that Squad could write some basic criteria for the creation of planetary systems, hit the "Go" button, and make a planetary system just like that. I don't necessarily mean that the game itself would procedurally generate on the fly. I'm talking about developers building planetary systems quickly and easily using the kind of procedural generation No Man's Sky and Astroneer use, where it is used as a quick and easy way to generate lots of content with lots of variety.

Edited April 9, 2016 by blorgon
Clarification on what I meant by "procedural generation"