Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0

[Zucal]

I have to agree with NovaSilisko and the others here, ion and other very low-thrust engines are becoming a more mainstream source of propulsion, and KSP owes them a proper, realistic tribute befitting a simulation. Right now ions are just too, too powerful.

What I also think needs to happen is some kind of atmospheric propulsion that doesn't require oxygen. An electric propeller of some kind would be perfect, as it has shown up in concepts like HAVOC and would be very similar to current or pre 1.0 ions in that it would require a large amount of electricity, and would generate relatively little thrust. Now that I could get behind.

[Corw]

You mean like how entire space rockets, planes and their fuel can be built out of thin air in an instant, with no other infrastructure on the planet? Or how the planets are on rails and the sun has an infinite SOI? Or that the universe's physics, planets' characteristics and how engines work changes every few months? Or that infinite ore can be wished out of the ground? Or where magic spinning boxes can right your craft? Or where the crew never eat, drink or defecate? Or where fuel can be magically created from rocks? Or where a claw can make two craft become one with fuel cross feeds?...

Its a game, not a simulation. Whatever is needed to make it interesting or fun is implemented. So, ion engines lifting a 100t rocket from sea level, why not? Who's to say what is impossible in the Kerbal-verse?

From what I've seen and read over the years KSP is a balance between fun and realistic, with accent on realistic.

It has been using simplifications to improve fun (building out of thin air, fuel mining, fuel transfer), simplifications to avoid simulation problems (on the rails planets, SOI), scaling down to improve fun (smaller system, planets), scaling up to improve fun (high TWR, high ISP, high ion engine trust to improve burn time). But all of those simplifications and scaling are actually based in possible things. Fuel transfer is possible, but hard. RAPIER is possible, but hard, SSTO is possible but hard. Mining fuel on other planets and moons is possible, but you've guessed it, it is hard. A lot of systems were added over time as the game was maturing, they were just missing at a time and were added over long period of time.

So yes, there are a lot of compromises on realism to have more fun, but realism was always strong in this one. There are no unicorns, warp drives and ion engines lifting 100t from sea level. In future Kerbals might eat, poop and have cities, because that was not high on list of important stuff, but your magic unicorns are nowhere to be found on that list. Your magic unicorn ion engines are not hard, they are impossible, so they are not included.

[MarvinKitFox]

"Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0 "

Let me correct your spelling on that.

"Joy. Horrid exploit finally fixed in 1.0"

[Tankman101]

I have to agree with NovaSilisko and the others here, ion and other very low-thrust engines are becoming a more mainstream source of propulsion, and KSP owes them a proper, realistic tribute befitting a simulation. Right now ions are just too, too powerful.

They still need to be able to complete a burn in a reasonable time.

20 minutes is not a reasonable time.

[MarvinKitFox]

They still need to be able to complete a burn in a reasonable time.

20 minutes is not a reasonable time.

If you want to match real-world parameters, then your Ion drive should use ten times the power, deliver 20 times the ISP, and deliver one ten-thousandth of the thrust.

Look to burn times ranging from dozens to hundreds of days.

[Tankman101]

If you want to match real-world parameters, then your Ion drive should use ten times the power, deliver 20 times the ISP, and deliver one ten-thousandth of the thrust.

Look to burn times ranging from dozens to hundreds of days.

Well we can't run real-world parameters because KSP is a game, and the vessel needs to be focused in order to thrust.

20 minutes is what a nerf would be more like. 200 days is just dumb.

[Jouni]

They still need to be able to complete a burn in a reasonable time.

20 minutes is not a reasonable time.

20 minutes is a perfectly reasonable burn time, especially if you can use physics warp. It's the time required for a transfer burn to Jool with a low-TWR nuclear stage. Burns taking more than an hour can be tedious, but 20-30-minute burns are still quite normal.

KSP is ultimately a game about waiting, because that's what space travel is. You wait for the right time to launch the rocket. You wait until it's the time to start the gravity turn. You wait for the lower stage to burn out. You wait for the upper stage to raise the apoapsis high enough. You wait until the rocket reaches the apoapsis. You wait until the circularization burn finishes. You wait until it's the right time to make a Hohmann transfer to rendezvous with the target. You wait until the right point in the transfer orbit to make course corrections. You wait until you're close to the target, before killing most of the relative velocity. You wait as the ship slowly drifts closer to the target, before coming to a complete halt. You wait as the target ship slowly rotates, until the correct docking port faces the incoming ship. You wait as the ship aligns itself with the docking port, and then moves slowly closer to dock. You wait for the next launch window, and then wait for the ship to complete the interplanetary transfer burn. At this point, the mission has just only started, and there's much more waiting ahead.

[Hotaru]

All of those things are either unrelated to the point of KSP and therefore fair game to be handwaved in the name of gameplay or simplicity, or in need of fixing along with the ion engines. I never said the ions were the only OP thing that needed fixing, did I?

You mean like how entire space rockets, planes and their fuel can be built out of thin air in an instant, with no other infrastructure on the planet?

KSP is about the engineering of space exploration, not ground-based logistics. Same reason the contract system is simplistic and there's no political wrangling. Those of us who want logistics too (like me!) can install KCT.

Or how the planets are on rails and the sun has an infinite SOI?

It's also not about astrophysics. Planets on rails are a pretty good approximation of real life, and why should the sun's SoI be finite until we have another star system to visit?

Or that the universe's physics, planets' characteristics and how engines work changes every few months?

It's a computer program in development. This is a concession, not to reality but to real life. (Be fair, this shouldn't still be happening now that it's labeled 1.0, but that's a different argument.)

Or that infinite ore can be wished out of the ground?

We don't have hardware anywhere near large enough to mine on a scale that would deplete planetary resources. We've got single drills, not strip mines! And the one type of body small enough for a single drill to deplete its resources--asteroids--does have depletable resources.

Or where magic spinning boxes can right your craft?

I agree, reaction wheels could do with a nerf.

Or where the crew never eat, drink or defecate?

I have to agree here as well, I would like to see some kind of stock life support.

Or where fuel can be magically created from rocks?

It's not the creating fuel from rocks that I disagree with, it's that ore and fuel are equivalent weight! You can refine 100t of ore into 100t of fuel! That doesn't make any kind of sense at all, and is right up there with OP ion engines on my personal list of things that need nerfing. Even if we keep it at an unrealisticaly high rate, at least make the ratio more like 2:1 as a token concession to reality!

Or where a claw can make two craft become one with fuel cross feeds?

Also agreed, I personally never use the claw that way and don't think it should be possible. We really could do with something like KIS in stock.

Its a game, not a simulation. Whatever is needed to make it interesting or fun is implemented. So, ion engines lifting a 100t rocket from sea level, why not? Who's to say what is impossible in the Kerbal-verse?

That logic is correct, for mods. Not for the stock game. Giving the Kerbals assault rifles so they can shoot each other would be interesting. Warp drive sounds fun too. Aliens, those would be interesting. Lightsabers are all kinds of fun. Should Squad implement those things too? Or should they be left to modders, because, although interesting, they have nothing to do with what KSP is about: space exploration?

Just because it would be fun or interesting doesn't mean it should be in stock KSP. And just because it's already in stock KSP doesn't mean it's not overpowered and in need of a nerf.

[Zzabur]

They still need to be able to complete a burn in a reasonable time.

20 minutes is not a reasonable time.

You can warp x2-3-4 during burn. If it's still "not reasonable", you're free to use a higher thrust engine.

[Temeter]

Even now hardly anyone uses ion engines, because they are just very impractical to use outside of small satellites.

And btw, KSPs normal engines aren't realistic either. They weight multiple times what they should in a realistic environment.

[Albert VDS]

And who knows what little green men from another world might have figured out to get decent power density out of an ion engine?

That a moot point, because KSP isn't a futuristic space game. It's portraying current achievable tech.

If they did have an ion engine capable for use in landers then it wouldn't be an ion engine. Think about that.

But let's say they did, then why would they still be using chemical rockets.

Why not take it a step further? They could have create something which laughs in the face of the rocket equation.

[Wanderfound]

"Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0 "

Let me correct your spelling on that.

"Joy. Horrid exploit finally fixed in 1.0"

Seconded. If folks want to play Star Trek: The Kerbal Generation, they have a wide variety of SF mods to choose from.

They also have virtually every other space-themed game ever released. But this game, thankfully, is something different.

[Foxster]

Please for the love of Jeb be posting this ironically. You can't really think this right?

Umm, maybe just a tad. Mostly though to keep the thoughts on this flowing.

My main issue is that I don't want KSP to descend completely into a human world simulation with the life sucked out of it i.e. just something for a dozen NASA nerds. It does not need every little chance of making something wacky, interesting or the result of some odd lateral thinking removed just so someone can say, as the lights are turned off, "Well that was a very accurate game at the end just when everyone stopped playing because it got boring".

1.0.2 has taken us in that direction. You can't build mad SSTOs anymore, you can't go to orbit on ion engines, you can't get off the ground with a lot of the rocket engines, you can't build stupid fat rockets for the hell of it, you have to stick fins on everything... I'm sure that's all lovely in terms of 'reality' but if I want reality I can watch the news! I play computer games to escape reality.

So I say lets have flying saucers appearing. Lets have a Kerbal discover anti-matter. How about a wormhole to another solar system? If nothing else it would keep things interesting once we stopped loving having a rocket drop out of the sky to please some realism nut.

[Red Iron Crown]

Reasonably realistic flight simulation is one of the key selling points of KSP, I'd expect things to continue moving closer to the realistic end of the scale. You can always mod or mess with settings to make silly things (and some like seeing how silly they can get away with in a realistic model).

[Hotaru]

Umm, maybe just a tad. Mostly though to keep the thoughts on this flowing.

My main issue is that I don't want KSP to descend completely into a human world simulation with the life sucked out of it i.e. just something for a dozen NASA nerds. It does not need every little chance of making something wacky, interesting or the result of some odd lateral thinking removed just so someone can say, as the lights are turned off, "Well that was a very accurate game at the end just when everyone stopped playing because it got boring".

1.0.2 has taken us in that direction. You can't build mad SSTOs anymore, you can't go to orbit on ion engines, you can't get off the ground with a lot of the rocket engines, you can't build stupid fat rockets for the hell of it, you have to stick fins on everything... I'm sure that's all lovely in terms of 'reality' but if I want reality I can watch the news! I play computer games to escape reality.

So I say lets have flying saucers appearing. Lets have a Kerbal discover anti-matter. How about a wormhole to another solar system? If nothing else it would keep things interesting once we stopped loving having a rocket drop out of the sky to please some realism nut.

Although I disagree with you on the sci-fi stuff (we have several great mods for that, some of which I use, but I don't think it should be stock), I agree absolutely about taking things too far in a "realism-at-all-costs" direction. I like the scale-model solar system, the simplified mechanics, the crazy engineering. That stuff is why I've played Orbiter for about two days and KSP for many months.

But creativity and realism aren't mutually exclusive; we can have all kinds of fun with realistic parts and physics. I think it would be a shame if KSP were reduced to an excercise in stacking the correct combination of payload-->fairing-->tank-->engine-->decoupler-->tank-->engine-->radial decouplers-->boosters-->launch clamps-->done, which it sometimes feels like, especially in career mode.

I don't think it is that way though, not in 0.90 and not in 1.0.2. Look through some of the stuff in the Spacecraft Exchange section or the What Did You Do In KSP Today thread, some of it is really clever! Some of the SSTOs in the (recently-unsticked, unfortunately) SSTO showcase thread are seriously "mad" and still work fine. You yourself built a very nifty Dyna-soar replica and a 50's-style rocketship in 1.0.2, if I recall. I've had some fun with torus stations and mini-shuttles and SSTOs that I never did in 0.90. All this even with the added "realism" of 1.0.2 aero and balance.

And if that's not enough, look at some of the stuff that's gotten built in real life! A lot of it is standard-issue stage-stage-payload stuff, but look at the Space Shuttle or the Apollo spacecraft. Those were creative pieces of engineering. Look at SpaceShips One and Two, even if they didn't work out in the end they were pretty creative. Look at the stratospheric parachute jumps--all the crazy airbags and skycranes and things we've been using to drop stuff onto Mars--the Deep Impact mission, also known as "let's crash a spaceship into a comet and see what happens!"--SpaceX trying to land its rockets vertically like something out of a Heinlein novel--the list goes on. And those were all done on hard career mode, no reverts, with all the realism mods installed.

[FleshJeb]

If you want to match real-world parameters, then your Ion drive should use ten times the power, deliver 20 times the ISP, and deliver one ten-thousandth of the thrust.

Look to burn times ranging from dozens to hundreds of days.

Actually, the ISP is really close now. Current real-life tech is listed at 20-50km/s exhaust velocity. This is range for ISP of 2040-5099.

The Quad-Grid tech I posted upthread is higher, of course, but that's in the bench-test phase.

[Foxster]

Although I disagree with you on the sci-fi stuff (we have several great mods for that, some of which I use, but I don't think it should be stock), I agree absolutely about taking things too far in a "realism-at-all-costs" direction. I like the scale-model solar system, the simplified mechanics, the crazy engineering. That stuff is why I've played Orbiter for about two days and KSP for many months.

But creativity and realism aren't mutually exclusive; we can have all kinds of fun with realistic parts and physics. I think it would be a shame if KSP were reduced to an excercise in stacking the correct combination of payload-->fairing-->tank-->engine-->decoupler-->tank-->engine-->radial decouplers-->boosters-->launch clamps-->done, which it sometimes feels like, especially in career mode.

I don't think it is that way though, not in 0.90 and not in 1.0.2. Look through some of the stuff in the Spacecraft Exchange section or the What Did You Do In KSP Today thread, some of it is really clever! Some of the SSTOs in the (recently-unsticked, unfortunately) SSTO showcase thread are seriously "mad" and still work fine. You yourself built a very nifty Dyna-soar replica and a 50's-style rocketship in 1.0.2, if I recall. I've had some fun with torus stations and mini-shuttles and SSTOs that I never did in 0.90. All this even with the added "realism" of 1.0.2 aero and balance.

And if that's not enough, look at some of the stuff that's gotten built in real life! A lot of it is standard-issue stage-stage-payload stuff, but look at the Space Shuttle or the Apollo spacecraft. Those were creative pieces of engineering. Look at SpaceShips One and Two, even if they didn't work out in the end they were pretty creative. Look at the stratospheric parachute jumps--all the crazy airbags and skycranes and things we've been using to drop stuff onto Mars--the Deep Impact mission, also known as "let's crash a spaceship into a comet and see what happens!"--SpaceX trying to land its rockets vertically like something out of a Heinlein novel--the list goes on. And those were all done on hard career mode, no reverts, with all the realism mods installed.

Wise words.

I'm just trying to inject, where I can, a little anti-total-realism so that the devs don't think that's all anyone out here wants.

[Jouni]

My impression is that KSP has always strived for a good balance between realism and casual gameplay – from the point of view of a long-time Orbiter player. That probably means more realism and less casual gameplay than the average KSP player expects.

[Bill Phil]

1.0.2 has taken us in that direction. You can't build mad SSTOs anymore, you can't go to orbit on ion engines, you can't get off the ground with a lot of the rocket engines, you can't build stupid fat rockets for the hell of it, you have to stick fins on everything... I'm sure that's all lovely in terms of 'reality' but if I want reality I can watch the news! I play computer games to escape reality.

Are you kidding? I've flipped rockets in mid air and still made it to orbit.

You can do whatever you want, but there's no guarantee it'll work.

[NovaSilisko]

I'm just trying to inject, where I can, a little anti-total-realism so that the devs don't think that's all anyone out here wants.

Do you really read what other people post? The "total realism" of which you speak is a significant minority opinion. "Partial realism", however, is the current direction of the game, and what most people seem to want. Hey, while we're at it, why even have gravity fall off with the inverse square of the distance? Who needs realistic crap like that, anyway?

A precedent has been set long ago with a preference toward partial realism. The planets are indeed small, but the mathematics that govern their motion is strongly like that of the real world (ie, it follows keplerian dynamics, not general relativity). Rocket engines use real equations for their operation, even if somewhat simplified. Using the fact that rockets are constructed "from thin air" is quite possibly, no, quite literally, the worst "argument" against realistic features I have ever seen. I do not say such a thing lightly.

I think this thread needs a pruning, or a direct hit from a bolide.

Edited June 9, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[Robotengineer]

How many times do people need to be reminded that KSP is supposed to have some semblance of realism! That is one of the main selling points! There are thousands of space opera shooters, but only a handful of pseudo-realistic space sims (KSP and Orbiter AFAIK). Anti-realists say 'go play Orbiter!', it is time the realist's say 'Go play some space opera shooter!'. /rant

[KSK]

Do you really read what other people post? The "total realism" of which you speak is a significant minority opinion. "Partial realism", however, is the current direction of the game, and what most people seem to want. Hey, while we're at it, why even have gravity fall off with the inverse square of the distance? Who needs realistic crap like that, anyway?

Yep - inverse-cube would be far more entertaining.

[clivman]

Yep - inverse-cube would be far more entertaining.

Mission Control, why did we just lose contact with our ship! Mission Control: Umm. Were pretty sure it was just spagettified as it entered Low Kerbol Orbit.

[NovaSilisko]

Yep - inverse-cube would be far more entertaining.

On the subject, a direct inverse falloff is pretty interesting. You get neat little trefoil shaped orbits, and orbital velocity actually stays the same regardless of altitude, from my experiments.

[Foxster]

How many times do people need to be reminded that KSP is supposed to have some semblance of realism!

Says who? Show me the design spec.