Realism vs. Unbridled Creativity

[Robotengineer]

This sums up a lot of the complaining I've seen about SSTO's and Nukes. "The nukes are overheating my interplanetary tug! You broke my workflow!" "The new atmosphere makes SSTO's, like, impossible!" True creativity is being able to work with what you have.

[rodion_herrera]

True creativity is being able to work with what you have.

[r_rolo1]

@Robotengineer

Well, TBH, the nukes were ( and IMHO still are somewhat ) broken by even SQUAD standarts, otherwise they would had not hotfixed it , so that is a bad example. But yeah, on the SSTO spaceplanes, you're 100% right. They are supposed to be hard to pull, after all

[Guest]

I would only agree with this statement if my old designs from pre-1.0 won't make it to LKO (with a few alternations that would consider the changes in aero/heat). But they did work, and the lessons I got from the changes, I applied to my new creations and since then I never have problems getting to LKO using an SSTO spaceplane. So I find it difficult to agree with that statement.

It took me some time to adjust to the new ascent profile and make sure my craft was stable, whereas pre-1.0 I could literally slap together any old thing and get it to orbit. It's much more of an iterative process for me now. Some designs don't need much TWR, others need a lot, some more wing, others less, etc... I'm not much of a spaceplane person, though, since normally I play with a full Realism Overhaul install, although I do try to get designs through reentry.

[rodion_herrera]

whereas pre-1.0 I could literally slap together any old thing and get it to orbit.

Would you guys label me a "bad person" if I kept comparing Orbiter Space Flight Simulator with KSP? Because that's where I come from, and frankly, when I first tried spaceplanes in KSP back in 2013 and saw that I could just "slap together any old thing and get to orbit", I don't know, I found it almost insulting with the fact that I really had to learn with great difficultly, how to get spacecraft up into low EARTH orbit, in Orbiter, and now here I am flying wonko-flyer-from-the-junkyard up into orbit or even around the Mun... Yes, they are two different programs with probably different goals, but still, I think anyone can still relate with that feeling I get when something you know is difficult becomes summarily oversimplified or totally fictionalized.

This is precisely why somehow I "felt" that the direction that KSP is headed now is the "right" direction (and that Squad made the right choices on what to put in for v1.0), because stuff I've learned about space travel before, I can now apply to it, with good results.

Edited May 2, 2015 by rodion_herrera

[Guest]

Would you guys label me a "bad person" if I kept comparing Orbiter Space Flight Simulator with KSP? Because that's where I come from, and frankly, when I first tried spaceplanes in KSP back in 2013 and saw that I could just "slap together any old thing and get to orbit", I don't know, I found it almost insulting with the fact that I really had to learn with great difficultly, how to get spacecraft up into low EARTH orbit, in Orbiter, and now here I am flying wonko-flyer-from-the-junkyard up into orbit or even around the Mun...

I certainly wouldn't label you a "bad person". I, too, felt kind of insulted by about 0.22 or so (because I've never played anything like KSP before) that you could literally crap out something into your hand and fly it to Mun or Minmus. It's one of the reasons I started playing Realism Overhaul/RSS; KSP was just too silly after a time and made no sense. The more I learned about actual rocket science, the more I wanted to see those elements in KSP.

This is precisely why somehow I "felt" that the direction that KSP is headed now is the "right" direction (and that Squad made the right choices on what to put in for v1.0), because stuff I've learned about space travel before, I can now apply to it, with good results.

Considering I am playing, learning, and having to reassess even my oldFAR ways for KSP 1.0, I completely agree. This is a fantastic update and I am very much enjoying the stock experience. It makes waiting for the next Realism Overhaul update much more bearable. This is the kind of game KSP should be. Certainly it's an abstraction but it's a useful abstraction that combines real math with good game elements (well, if we're not talking about career mode). Yes, LV-Ns produce heat when they shouldn't, and we use wings for radiators, and our ISRU can literally produce complex hydrocarbons anywhere from "Ore", and engine exhaust really only heats up things directly behind the engine, and ... I could go on, but I don't see that as detrimental; KSP 1.0.2 added realism where it was needed and glossed over things like planet size to deliver us a great balance of game and sim.

I'll definitely move on to an RO/RSS install when it's time, but I won't feel embarrassed opening up the stock game anymore.

[Robotengineer]

Would you guys label me a "bad person" if I kept comparing Orbiter Space Flight Simulator with KSP?

I certainly wouldn't, and I don't think anybody should, especially considering that, AFAIK, HarvesteR came from Orbiter.

[WOODY01]

I am with the restrictions inspire creativity crowd. Aesthically however being restricted is a henderance to the design process. I have a design that works pretty well the thing I do not like about it is where the wings need to be placed to work. They are not too far off from where I would like them to be but it is where they need to be for it to be stable in flight. If I worked a little more on weight distribution I probally could get it to look exactly how I want. Might require losing some fuel but I will gain TWR, a situation I like to be placed in playing games.

[rodion_herrera]

I think for some (and I'm not referring to the "seasoned" KSP crowd who have played it since v0.11...maybe I'm even talking about kids) players, especially the newer ones, it comes off as a bit of rude awakening to find out their Star Wars X-Wing fighter doesn't have the fuel to take off VTOL and get to orbit, or that its drag is way too much for a decent ascent from Kerbin. Same goes for the Millenium Falcon, or a Star Trek Klingon 'Bird of Prey'. I believe prior to v1.0, these designs (which some 13 or 14 year old would be beaming with pride at having built in KSP) would work, and it's sobering to realize they might not work in v1.0. So now I ask, in connection with the whole realism vs. creativity/fun...that a good thing or a bad thing, I mean for their KSP experience? And what can be done about it?

[Robotengineer]

I think for some (and I'm not referring to the "seasoned" KSP crowd who have played it since v0.11...maybe I'm even talking about kids) players, especially the newer ones, it comes off as a bit of rude awakening to find out their Star Wars X-Wing fighter doesn't have the fuel to take off VTOL and get to orbit, or that its drag is way too much for a decent ascent from Kerbin. Same goes for the Millenium Falcon, or a Star Trek Klingon 'Bird of Prey'. I believe prior to v1.0, these designs (which some 13 or 14 year old would be beaming with pride at having built in KSP) would work, and it's sobering to realize they might not work in v1.0. So now I ask, in connection with the whole realism vs. creativity/fun...that a good thing or a bad thing, I mean for their KSP experience? And what can be done about it?

Whether it is good or bad depends on your point of view. If you view KSP as secretly training the future generation of aerospace engineers, it's a good thing. If you view KSP as just a fun science-y physics sandbox, it's probably a bad thing.

[rodion_herrera]

Whether it is good or bad depends on your point of view. If you view KSP as secretly training the future generation of aerospace engineers, it's a good thing. If you view KSP as just a fun science-y physics sandbox, it's probably a bad thing.

So for a fun, sciencey physics sandbox, you'd prefer they still allow X-wing fighters taking off from the surface SSTO style and docking with a Mon Calamari cruiser, high above Kerbin...is that what you're saying?

[Jikahn]

I haven't played much in this update since there seem to be some major issues to work out, so I will reserve my judgement until the memory leaks and aerodynamic tweaking settle down. My concern is with the move towards realism is that we don't have unlimited creative options. In the "real world", you can design RCS thrusters that fit to the airframe, solar panels that are flush with the airframe, and any part you can think of can be fabricated. In KSP we have a limited number of parts and cannot reasonably fabricate our own through stock game-play. Moving towards realism does actually limit options. Realism is inherently limiting, which is why humans haven't actually visited mars. Some really fun things I built in the past are simply not possible now. I preferred FAR when I played in the past, so this aerodynamic model doesn't really bother me. The addition of heating is a bit concerning considering the limited options we have to deal with it. The main problem I see with making things more realistic is they have to provide more creative options in order to overcome the challenges. As it is now, stock KSP doesn't even have a Delta V readout and lacks a precise way to edit maneuver nodes. How many of you who are proud of your accomplishments in FAR achieved your goals no Delta V readouts, no Engineer, etc? We have a more realistic flight model, and a more realistic heating model. So why is it we don't have more realistic part connections. We have to deal with mach effects, but our parts aren't even properly rigid? Tall rockets still bend and wobble like a noodle.

The move towards realism is fine, but needs to be accompanied by fun ways to learn the basics and more advanced concepts, as well as more options for dealing with challenges. How many posts have you seen where people don't understand the need for fins to have stable flight in a the current atmosphere, or the loss of control upon achieving supersonic flight? And that, as many of us know, is not even the tip of the iceberg. It was already an extremely hard game for many people. The more realism KSP introduces, the more people will be blocked by the barrier of entry. In the same way people aren't lining up to play X Plane, FSX, or Falcon 4 BMS. Just food for thought.

[Robotengineer]

So for a fun, sciencey physics sandbox, you'd prefer they still allow X-wing fighters taking off from the surface SSTO style and docking with a Mon Calamari cruiser, high above Kerbin...is that what you're saying?

Not at all. I was saying that everybody views the game slightly differently, I prefer RO/RSS, but I know that some people prefer stock/lolaero, so it's impossible to say absolutely whether it is good or bad. I try to respect all variations of playing, while advocating for a more realistic game.

[WOODY01]

I think for some (and I'm not referring to the "seasoned" KSP crowd who have played it since v0.11...maybe I'm even talking about kids) players, especially the newer ones, it comes off as a bit of rude awakening to find out their Star Wars X-Wing fighter doesn't have the fuel to take off VTOL and get to orbit, or that its drag is way too much for a decent ascent from Kerbin. Same goes for the Millenium Falcon, or a Star Trek Klingon 'Bird of Prey'. I believe prior to v1.0, these designs (which some 13 or 14 year old would be beaming with pride at having built in KSP) would work, and it's sobering to realize they might not work in v1.0. So now I ask, in connection with the whole realism vs. creativity/fun...that a good thing or a bad thing, I mean for their KSP experience? And what can be done about it?

I think with some part clipping, which I believe a lot of those designs already make use of, and/or making some adjustments to current designs keeping the visual appearance they should work in 1.0 and any updates that follow.

It is not that hard with part clipping to design something that would not fly without clipping parts. The drag model can be fooled by strategically placing a part so it is the one the drag is calculated for, clipping wings to get the COL in the right spot and some other tricks I have seen on other peoples designs should work.

As for what can be done about it probally nothing on Squads end that would not upset one group of players. Make it so unrealistic designs fly without part clipping and taking advantage of how the game calculate things you upset the "We want more realism" crowd. Do it the other way and others are upset that their rockets flip, SSTO's or harder to get to orbit, etc.

The best solution is for Squad to settle on what they believe is best for the game and sales. Then continue to support modders so people can tweak their game to their expectations and preferences.

[rodion_herrera]

In the same way people aren't lining up to play X Plane, FSX, or Falcon 4 BMS. Just food for thought.

So maybe that's the problem right there, I DO WANT KSP to evolve into something like X-Plane, FSX and Falcon 4:BMS (which incidentally all of which I own and fly). So maybe all my suggestions will lead to KSP's detriment. Should I just then give up? LOL

[Aanker]

So maybe that's the problem right there, I DO WANT KSP to evolve into something like X-Plane, FSX and Falcon 4:BMS (which incidentally all of which I own and fly). So maybe all my suggestions will lead to KSP's detriment. Should I just then give up? LOL

In my opinion that is not what KSP is for. The style and tone of the game suggests it should be more like a fun physics and space exploration sandbox. Heck, it is even being marketed as educational for lower education levels. It's not a simulator, it shouldn't be, and it benefits from not being one.

I play KSP mainly so that I can build up a cool spaceplane-orbital infrastructure. Now my spaceplanes all look the same because of the abhorrent drag changes in 1.0.1.

[Wayfare]

I feel KSPs happy-go-lucky "let's have a new feature that's 80% complete!" days are over. We're in 1.x territory and that means we're well due a focused game experience. Giving us sliders to tune it to our own liking is nice, but there's no core to work from. The fact that Squad just overhauled New Aero within days of it being released - drastically changing the game's basic parameters - speaks volumes. We need a baseline. Squad needs to sit down and decide how they want the game to played, and then tune all these fantastic mechanics they've implemented around that. Only then will options and sliders really mean something.

Right now KSP stands more on the strength of its concept that its design. It has for over four years now and it has been great! The concept it stands on is brilliant and its mechanics are well-implemented. It's just time to make a real game out of it.

[NWDogg]

I thought Squad was going to implement the ability to switch up the aero model in-game, perhaps with a toggle in the menu or something. What happened to that? I think that would solve quite a bit of issues people are having, as the creative crowd could still fly their awesome-looking designs with the more-forgiving old aero model, and the realism crowd could have the nice semi-realistic aero they wanted. Sure, there's the incompatibility problem with ship sharing, but that's a very minor issue compared to a (seemingly) good portion of the player-base not enjoying the game anymore.

Besides, this is the same discussion that was had when realistic-aero was first suggested. The creative crowd didn't want it, the realism crowd obviously did...the only proper solution (that I can think of, anyway) is to allow a toggle for the aero between old/new. That's it. Some creative people will eventually come around to like the realism, but not all, and some realism people will want to mess around with crazy designs sometimes. So the game needs that one little option.

[Aerindel]

Maybe what some people really need is Kerbal Airplane program so they will stop complaining and let the rest of us fly our semi-realistic rockets in peace.

[rodion_herrera]

Maybe what some people really need is Kerbal Airplane program so they will stop complaining and let the rest of us fly our semi-realistic rockets in peace.

Well in real life, the two are somewhat inseparable. You won't have the manned space program if it wasn't for things like the Bell X-1, X-15, etc.

[Guest]

I think a fantastic idea for a mod would be OldAero, or something similar. Basically just the crappy drag model terrible placeholder we had before. That's where it belongs, IMO, somewhere far, far away from stock KSP.

[Aanker]

Maybe what some people really need is Kerbal Airplane program so they will stop complaining and let the rest of us fly our semi-realistic rockets in peace.

They're not mutually exclusive. One simple solution would be to lessen the drag of wings and aircraft/spaceplane fuselage sections. I'm advocating changes that would keep the community together, not split it apart. Arguments like "l2p", "get mod", heck even config switch solutions (as much as I appreciate the effort) are not sustainable solutions to keeping the community together and improving the game. Fix - not ignore - the issue.

[rodion_herrera]

Also, I find that most of the things I've been wishing for since I first played KSP (my first version was the v0.18 demo, then I purchased the v0.19) were implemented slowly with each new version. Maybe that's what emboldens me to wish for the things that push for more realism (even at the expense of some fun), because that's what I've observed since 2013 on how the game has evolved to the present version.

[Guest]

Fix - not ignore - the issue.

But ... there is no issue.

[Aerindel]

But ... there is no issue.

Thats my position. We do we need incredibly unrealistic airplanes for Kerbal to work right? Correct me if I'm wrong but the big complaint is that people can't build things that are impossible to build in real life?

Maybe instead of screwing with the aero just make a "fusion powered ramjet engine" or something equally silly and just pretend that its advanced technology that actually allows SSTO's to work. That way the physics don't have to be broken but people who just want to play space fighter still can.