Looking realistic in KSP

[Rdivine]

Hey guys!

Ksp still has many corners to polish to make it look realistic. As such, i have listed a few.

Space Engines FX

An issue of the engines in KSP is with its FX. It is the same regardless on ground, or in space.

However, in real life, there is no air pressure in space from stopping the exhaust in staying so neat, so the exhaust tends to spray all over the place.

The KSP Space Engine FX should be similar to the ones in real life. As there is no air pressure in space, the exhaust will form a bowl-shape.

Radioisotope Thermal Generators

The Radioisotope Thermal Generators in real life contain plutonium, which decays over long periods of time and generate heat, which is turned to electricity. However, they will eventually run out.

In KSP, the problem with RTGs is that they provide an infinite amount of electricity, which renders any solar panels useless. Slap on a pair of RTGs and you have infinite electricity.

For balancing purposes, RTGs should have reduced power over time, and eventually run out over a few years. This should make people want solar panels as the better solution for long term energy needs.

Fairings

The fairing parts in KSP are quite weak structures. They tend to make the craft wobble about the fairing. Futhermore, what worsens the problem is the inability to place struts ON the fairing part. This means that the rocket wobbling problem cannot be fixed.

Additionally, (i have heard many posts about this, but with to reiterate this) fairings are like confetti. Stage once and you have 20+ pieces of fairings flying about. A suggestion is the option to toggle between confetti, 2 part, 3 part and 4 part fairings. This is to allow maximum speed of fairing sep, yet prevent confetti showers from happening every time.

A suggestion for fairings is the ability to add curves into fairings. This will make the craft more sleek and open up new possibilities.

Nuclear "NERV" Engines

Many ksp players have touted at the "realism" of nuclear engines in ksp. The change from lf+ox to lf is big, but realistic. However, they do not burn any fuel at all.

Nuclear engines produce heat using a nuclear core, causing the exhaust to expand and escape quickly, increasing ISP. However, the process of burning does not happen. Hence, nuclear engines should not have any FX at all, just the engine glowing bright blue.

Here at the nerva engine test, the exhaust, hygrogen gas, is lit to prevent any explosions.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Rdivine

[Wjolcz]

Dunno about NERVAs. I would actually like to have some FX to see if the engine is running or not.

I agree with the rest, though.

[Andiron]

I agree for engines FX

In atmosphere, they should have a lot denser smoke and flames

In space it should be a compact egg-shaped exhaust

[SaturnV]

Most RTGs IRL last 10 years or more. 10 years is longer than most trips in Kerbol system, I think making it an infinite power source is not a big problem but a reasonable simplification.

[Tw1]

I definitelly agree about engine effects, that is something that still hinders KSP's realism for me.

Though I don't quite agree about RTGs, yes, they should decay, but I think it should happen over decades.

Not as slowly as real life ones, but enough that old probes you go back to visit still have some power despite their age. One of the useful things about that technology is the length of time it can operate for. Maybe a half life of 15-20 years?

They are already more costly in terms of weight when compared to the alternatives, despite their convenience. A small nerf could be justified perhaps, but not a short lifespan.

I disagree about Lv-N thrust though, it may not be 100% realistic, but it is useful that it's obvious when an engine is running. Plus, it does look better with some visible exhaust

.

[Tankman101]

Space engine FX are probably more trouble than its worth.

RTGs are heavy, expensive, and produce absolutely pitiful amounts of EC. Keep them as infinite power sources for tiny chem-probes.

Clamshell fairings have been debated to death, and curved fairings are already possible, as is seen in the screenshot.

LV-N shouldn't have its activation obfuscated for the sake of realism, there needs to be a way to very clearly see that it is on. It's the same problem I have with ion engines.

[Kibble]

Realism Overhaul fixes many of the more physically-impossible things in KSP. But no mod even adds a simple adjustment for rocket engine plume shape based on air pressure!

[asmi]

Realism Overhaul fixes many of the more physically-impossible things in KSP. But no mod even adds a simple adjustment for rocket engine plume shape based on air pressure!

There was (still is?) a mod called RealPlume which did (still does?) just that.

[NathanKell]

And it's part of RO, at that.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[sarbian]

Realism Overhaul fixes many of the more physically-impossible things in KSP. But no mod even adds a simple adjustment for rocket engine plume shape based on air pressure!

Smokescreen (that allows exactly that) was released early 2014 and expansion was added more than a year ago. Not all mods use it all its features but the current hotrocket config does, and the good people of Realism Overhaul are writing configs for all their engines

[Hobbes Novakoff]

Space engine FX are probably more trouble than its worth.

RTGs are heavy, expensive, and produce absolutely pitiful amounts of EC. Keep them as infinite power sources for tiny chem-probes.

Clamshell fairings have been debated to death, and curved fairings are already possible, as is seen in the screenshot.

LV-N shouldn't have its activation obfuscated for the sake of realism, there needs to be a way to very clearly see that it is on. It's the same problem I have with ion engines.

I agree wholeheartedly. RTGs are intended for low-EC trickle operations-In other words, probe cores. They're also quite useful when building military stuff (Although that shouldn't be a prime concern of the devs) because they can be hidden inside armor, unlike solar panels. They're also absolutely essential for exploration past Dres, with the new power curves for solar panels.

- - - Updated - - -

For balancing purposes, RTGs should have reduced power over time, and eventually run out over a few years. This should make people want solar panels as the better solution for long term energy needs.

However, you have forgotten to take into account that with the new update solar panels are effectively useless past Dres. Therefore, RTGs are necessary, and if you want a long-term installation in the Jool system (like a Laythe base) with RTG decay you'd have to keep it continuously supplied with either new RTGs or with fuel for fuel cells.

Also, "good looking" takes precedence for me over "realistic looking." I don't want these effects because it makes my ship look like it's being propelled by overgrown RCS thrusters.

[Theysen]

Besides solar panels also lose their effectiveness over the years e.g. by radiation (just to name one factor among the others) in space environment. It's an decreasing exponential function. Due to this fact RTGs are the go to in the real world so I don't see a problem by making them infinite power sources.

[Rdivine]

Besides solar panels also lose their effectiveness over the years e.g. by radiation (just to name one factor among the others) in space environment. It's an decreasing exponential function. Due to this fact RTGs are the go to in the real world so I don't see a problem by making them infinite power sources.

Perhaps this is where fuel cells come in? I do agree with the people that RTGs do sound too nerfed if it ran out over a couple of years, but having an infinite source of energy renders any other sources of electricity useless. Fuel cells sound great when you don't have a better alternative. Furthermore, nerfing RTGs gives us a better reason for putting probes into "hibernation".

[Hobbes Novakoff]

Perhaps this is where fuel cells come in? I do agree with the people that RTGs do sound too nerfed if it ran out over a couple of years, but having an infinite source of energy renders any other sources of electricity useless. Fuel cells sound great when you don't have a better alternative. Furthermore, nerfing RTGs gives us a better reason for putting probes into "hibernation".

A problem with fuel cells is that it's waaaaaay too easy to leave them on during a long time warp and come out to find that every last drop of fuel is gone. And it's equally as easy to leave them off and find that your battery is completely drained. Not to mention, the fact that RTGs are an infinite source of EC is balanced by the fact that a) They give 0.75 EC per second, so you'd need about 10 of them for 1 ion engine, They weigh a ton, c) they're crazy bulky, and d) they cost thousands of funds apiece. They're balanced as they are. They're also the only viable choice for long-term missions.

[Noah_Blade]

And it's part of RO, at that.

http://imgur.com/a/01OP6

I think it should be stock the effects from RealPlume,the Nerva should have some sort of exuaust even if it is just coolant or something...

and Rtgs should have a config for mods like RSS or RO... and far out missions like jool's moons or eeloo solar energy is scarce

Edited June 7, 2015 by Noah_Blade

[Azimech]

From the Voyager 2 wiki:

"The spacecraft was built with 3 Multihundred-Watt radioisotope thermoelectric generators (MHW RTG). Each RTG includes 24 pressed plutonium oxide spheres and provides enough heat to generate approximately 157 watts of power at launch. Collectively, the RTGs supply the spacecraft with 470 watts at launch and will allow operations to continue until at least 2020."

[windows_x_seven]

10/10 would support again.

Here, have this:

[Captain Sierra]

Smokescreen (that allows exactly that) was released early 2014 and expansion was added more than a year ago. Not all mods use it all its features but the current hotrocket config does, and the good people of Realism Overhaul are writing configs for all their engines

I was going to shamelessly plug HotRockets here but I guess you took care of that.