Realism vs. Unbridled Creativity

[FlowerChild]

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.

But then you need to find an author who is both technically inclined and who also wants anything to do with old aero.

That may be a rather tough individual to find

[Guest]

We do we need incredibly unrealistic airplanes for Kerbal to work right?

IMO not in the slightest. Mods can handle that now but stock deserves better.

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?

Actually the big complaint, aside from drag values, seems to be that using wings as paneling no longer works. There is a solution to this but it's not in stock and would require a mod of some sort. I had a mind to build it but was told someone else already had code and to wait. It's an incredibly simple thing to do as well, basically all you need is a context-menu option on right-click to remove the lift module from the part and replace the drag model with a normal dragcube for the part in question. Alternatively, you could even go full unrealistic and remove the drag for that part entirely.

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.

That's one solution for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

But then you need to find an author who is both technically inclined and who also wants anything to do with old aero.

That may be a rather tough individual to find

I lol'd.

[Brotoro]

The kind of realism I want in KSP is for the physical laws governing its rocketry and orbital mechanics to be decent approximations of real-world physics (albeit simplified as needed to make it run fast and not melt my computer).

But since KSP is set in a diminutive solar system, I don't mind that we can accomplish 'unrealistic' things like making spaceplanes and SSTOs and go to the a moon and back in time for supper. Such things would be unrealistic in our universe, but they are not unphysical in the KSP universe.

If somebody wants to do unphysical things in KSP (like hop in a little X-wing and fly to a different planet), it should be easy enough to do by adding an Overpowered Unphysical Engine mod (while keeping the rest of KSP's close approximation to rocket/orbit physics)...and if they are having fun, that's great. If somebody else wants to make the reality of KSP more closely match the reality of our universe, then it should be easy to apply to appropriate changes and have fun (while still making use of KSP's rocket/orbit physics).

You could only have 'unbridled creativity' if you have no rules...and that would not be fun at all. The kind if creativity I enjoy in KSP is seeing what you can accomplish within the rules of the game.

[Alias72]

My position has been somewhat hard to explain. Their is no creativity without rules. Engineering, therefore, is one of the most creative endeavors in existence. With unlimited resources nothing is possible.

Rules such as physics do not BIND us, they DEFINE us. We cannot exist without them because we are, in part, the rules of the universe. Therefore finding innovative ways to use those rules is creativity. Staring at a canvas and deciding what to paint leaves one with many choices. Staring at a CAD program trying to design a wing that has to survive mach 5 air speeds leaves one with many challenges. I, therefore, contend that engineering is just as creative as art. Art is not the sole domain of imagination as I have seen propagandized.

As for how that relates to this thread. I favor realism. But it is NOT realism vs Creativity. It is realism FOR THE SAKE OF creativity.

[FlowerChild]

My position has been somewhat hard to explain. Their is no creativity without rules. Engineering, therefore, is one of the most creative endeavors in existence. With unlimited resources nothing is possible.

Bang on man. I have my own game design theory on this which I tend to phrase as "constraints breed creativity".

As an example, the creativity of an oil painting is largely admired because of the skill it takes to manipulate such a constrained medium. Sure, you can just snap a photo and it will be far more realistic looking than a talented artist painting the same landscape, but does that mean it will be appreciated more as a creative work, or that it took more creativity to produce it?

It's a similar concept to "necessity is the mother of invention". Without constraints, there's no need to be creative. Absolute freedom also means the absolute desire to do nothing at all, and I assume this is a big part of why people find creative games like KSP or Minecraft so engaging, and play them instead of going off and playing with CAD software instead.

As an aside, this is also why I really dislike it when I see design constraints removed from the game, such as part clipping or what have you. To me, the additional freedom it provides detracts from the gameplay (and player creativity) of KSP rather than contributing to it as most people would seem to argue.

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Aanker]

But ... there is no issue.

If you want to go in circles, I suggest building an Mk3 spaceplane. It won't be much more productive, but hey, at least nobody is wasting time right? I won't debate the same arguments with the same people ad infinitum.

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?

This is too presumptive, borderline judgmental again. Not once have I mentioned that I want to build 'unrealistic' X-wings - even though I don't see why people should be bothered by that, in stock. The argument is about multiple designs and approaches being viable. See the image below to understand what I mean.

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.

The "get mods" argument. No. I want to actually improve this game, because I care about it and because I think stock deserves better than this blunt hatred towards the spaceplane hangar.

[Jikahn]

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

No you shouldn't give up. I think realism is just great, but I'm one of those people who has spent hundreds of dollars on FSX addons. I also thought KSP with FAR and no heating was just peachy. Right now I'm unsure about heating, as so far it hasn't added anything to my experience except shallower return trajectories and more fiddling with part orientations. It's just another problem to solve in a game that already presents me with many problems to solve. Once the development has stabilized, I will give it an honest, open minded, try though. And I'll probably like it just as much as the old KSP, but if I don't, at least I can turn it off. xD

I don't know exactly where on the realism scale KSP should be. But at this time, I feel in my "gut", high levels realism are best reserved for modders, as realism is a very niche market. The KSP modders have proven that they are more than capable of amazing feats. I also feel people who like realism are more willing to mod their games (and endure the headaches that come with modding). People who are just curious about rockets, planes, 'n stuff are likely to quit because it's "too hard", or requires too much time spent outside of the game learning to play the game. Unless you are an actual aerospace engineer, at some level of realism you will end up saying, "Ain't nobody got time fo dat", especially when the stock game lacks crucial feedback and features. Even FAR had plenty data that you could look at and learn from. With FAR, you find yourself saying, "What's all this stuff mean? It's probably important." Do any of you actually expect people to fly Kerbalized SR-71 style aircraft in a "realistic" atmosphere with no AoA info? No CoG info? No mach number? No IAS? All we have is Altitude and TAS. No streamlined fuel balancing systems? Wobbly joints? As it is I don't recommend this game to anyone without also telling them to install the Engineer mod.

I think the new systems are just great, but there is and has been a severe lack of basic features that I feel are crucial for a new player to say, "Wow, there's a lot more to this than I realized", rather than "Game's too hard, I have better things to do." I believe that stock KSP should be roughly equal parts game and simulation. It would be a tragedy if this silly, tongue-in-cheek, game stopped being silly by default, and likewise stopped being accessible to people of all ages who have an interest in aerospace.

[Guest]

If you want to go in circles, I suggest building an Mk3 spaceplane. It won't be much more productive, but hey, at least nobody is wasting time right?

Okay.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

That took 27 tons to a pretty nice ballistic arc, I'll bet I could get it to orbit with 20 tons. Needs some work, a few extra parts, RCS, etc... I'll probably use it to bring my Grand Tour lander up to the tug.

So, yeah, there is no problem. "l2p", etc...

[Brotoro]

Would if work if Squad gave players some sliders to tweak the drag and lift multipliers so they could play the way they like? It could be instructive, too.

I would always play on what Squad sets as the default values for their parts balance, so it wouldn't matter to me personally...but more options, more possibilities for fun.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Read the italics in my signature, and that will solve the entire issue.

[Robotengineer]

Would if work if Squad gave players some sliders to tweak the drag and lift multipliers so they could play the way they like? It could be instructive, too.

I would always play on what Squad sets as the default values for their parts balance, so it wouldn't matter to me personally...but more options, more possibilities for fun.

They already have sliders and tweaks.

[NathanKell]

Brotoro: Alt-F12, click physics, go to town.

[rodion_herrera]

Ironically, the current orbit-capable spaceplanes I have at the moment for v1.x.x look more like your "What we could build before" ships in that drawing

[IPster]

@Aanker i like your illustration, but disagree with your message. There is still variety in design choice. And despite your hotdog ship idea of 1.02, my first ssto in 1.02 looks like this.

I used 3 turbojets and 2 "reliant"s since i don't have the rapier unlocked yet.

I think anyone who built planes in the old had to learn the old aerodynamic system, and didn't build the greatest ship ever on their first try. Instead we made progress on our understanding of the game physics(we all had to learn it from scratch since there was no real world analogue), and i think a lot of the frustration on the forums stems from having that progress(the understanding of the system) reset.

[rkman]

if you copy a working, tried and true real-world design (with all parts logically assembled), chances are, your aircraft or SSTO-spaceplane will work in 1.0

Which is already very lenient on realism, given that there are no working, tried and true real-world designs of SSTO-spaceplanes.

Other than that, the specifics of physics simulation for semi-realistic rocketry versus sci-fi fantasy are so different, they can not both be accomodated in one and the same game.

[spinomonkey]

Holy crap Ipster. That's a sweet ride!

[IPster]

thanx spinomonkey.

I like the direction squad is heading in. The new aerodynamics are more closely based on real principles, while still having the bar set low enough that sci-fi like stuff is possible. I think the old aero was immersion-breaking. You don't have to be an engineer to know that the pointyness of something makes it streamlined, not its lack of weight.