Conflicted....losing/lost interest in playing...

[regex]

KSP designed to be fun where as orbiter designed to be a simulation.

I did not say one can't be had without the other, fun and sim.

Implied in your OP, sim =/= fun. That is wrong. Much as people will happily call me out for saying MechJeb is cheating (almost always said as a joke), I call you out for the obvious falsity of sim =/= fun, because sim can === fun.

E: It's just a dumb comparison; you can't really compare sim vs. fun because people can obviously have fun with a sim. A better comparison might be "KSP is designed to be accessible whereas Orbiter is designed as a hardcore simulation."

Edited June 14, 2015 by regex

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Implied in your OP, sim =/= fun. That is wrong. Much as people will happily call me out for saying MechJeb is cheating (almost always said as a joke), I call you out for the obvious falsity of sim =/= fun, because sim can === fun.

Syntax error: '='

Anyway, I agree with you fully. I would personally love KSP to be as close to real life as possible. Maybe if people actually try RSS, they would have a different opinion (or maybe the same)

[regex]

Syntax error: '='

No, in some languages "===" means "fully equivalent". In others, the "==" will suffice. "=" is for assignment.

[Lazy8]

I really think my last paragraph is the game-breaker here.. There is a limit to the numbers we can push quickly on PCs and the number of relative points that would have to be pitched against each other would be astronomical in a game we would both love. Please someone prove me wrong.

again...you are missing my point. I wasn't saying I wished KSP was a different game with more astronomical calculations to perform making the game bog down even more than it does...I was trying to point out that the way the game is NOW is fine, just why have kerbal, mun, minmus, eve etc...and not have earth, moon, mars, etc. Why have different values in terms of gravity, DV required, distance etc as opposed to just making our solar system the game.

I think that pretty much boils it down to what I'm saying. I myself and only me, don't want to learn and fill my head with useless info that means nothing other than in the game as it now stands KSP. I wish that the game was made around the real SS with the real values and physics associated. Instead, we have to load mods that pretty well but not completely do that for us. Which takes away from loading other mods for visual etc.

This is really meaningless...I realize that more and more now as I see some of the responses and read over my own comments.

I had just finished watching a documentary on Apollo 11 and as soon as it was over and I was reflecting on it, I thought...damn! that would be cool to actually simulate that mission on KSP....oh yeah, that's right. KSP is a "game" and isn't supposed to be realistic. I wish it was.

So I thought "Hey while I'm checking to see if RO has made more progress" why don't I vent on the forum about why I am frustrated with squad and KSP. Maybe someone from squad will see it and it'll become this loud voice of many people wishing the same thing. Maybe squad would just add a setting into the game to have Kerbals in Kerbleland or the player could use the real solar system with correct values. And then they'd fix the game so that an infinite number of mods could be used. The "game" could have realistic scenery and visualization from other planets and space and world peace would rule across the lands for a thousand years......lol...alrighhht I'm being facetious.

I bought the "game" early on. I have had hours of enjoyment from it. It has been fun but I guess it isn't fulfilling what I want from it anymore...I'll check out Orbiter but from others comments and my google of it..it sounds dated and lacking in areas more so than KSP.

The folks working on Realism Overhaul rock! and all the people that work on the mods in their own time rock! Here's hoping that KSP can overcome the memory problems and the dev community can overcome the limitations placed by squad by making this more of a "game" than a simulation.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Lazy8

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

No, in some languages "===" means "fully equivalent". In others, the "==" will suffice. "=" is for assignment.

Well the more you know

As for the OP. I fully agree! When I first went into orbit at 70k up. I was expecting an ISS view. While I got, well the default view. Keep everything the same, aerodynamics, parts, Kerbals. Just scale it up! Nothing would change but time between planets. And your sense of accomplishment. Personally I would like to see this from the Mun

[Robotengineer]

Get Linux Mint with a dual boot setup.

Take advantage of Linux x64 and mod up.

Profit.

Really, Linux is currently the only reliable way to take full advantage of your specs, you can run realism mods and make your game look pretty. Win-Win.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Get Linux Mint with a dual boot setup.

Take advantage of Linux x64 and mod up.

Profit.

Really, Linux is currently the only reliable way to take full advantage of your specs, you can run realism mods and make your game look pretty. Win-Win.

TIL That Linux can update RSS

[bonyetty]

Implied in your OP, sim =/= fun. That is wrong. Much as people will happily call me out for saying MechJeb is cheating (almost always said as a joke), I call you out for the obvious falsity of sim =/= fun, because sim can === fun.

E: It's just a dumb comparison; you can't really compare sim vs. fun because people can obviously have fun with a sim. A better comparison might be "KSP is designed to be accessible whereas Orbiter is designed as a hardcore simulation."

Um didn't I accept your pedantic coment and corrected my self with the word primarily.

No it's a summary of what I believe the relative developers stated as the primary objectives for their game. It would be silly to think a game would have a single objective. You seem to be implying that. Oh KSP is designed to be accessible therefor applying you pedanticness is not fun and orbiter is designed as hardcore sim and thus the devs had no other objectives including fun. I did not use the word only neither did you. I think both yours and my casual comparisons are fair.

[Eric S]

Why have different values in terms of gravity, DV required, distance etc as opposed to just making our solar system the game.

The reason the devs have given in the past for that decision is that real scaling would significantly increase the time that it takes both to launch from and land on celestial bodies, increasing the "grind" factor of those two activities.

[regex]

No it's a summary of what I believe the relative developers stated as the primary objectives for their game.

Sure, but the comparison between "sim" and "fun" is still dumb. It's on the level of "MechJeb" and "cheating". There are much better ways to make your point than contrasting "sim" and "fun".

I also find it amusing that the advertising on the KSP website specifically states that KSP is intended to be simulator-like, at the very least:

Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.

I don't think I'm being pedantic in the least. KSP is intended to be a "not-so-hardcore" simulation.

[Madrias]

I've found KSP to be fun, both in Vanilla and RSS modes. I've tried the default Kerbal system, RSS, 6.4x Kerbal, and Earth-Sized Kerbal. Each has its own merits.

As for the whole 'simulation can't be fun / simulation makes it fun / realism makes it not fun / realism makes it fun' base of comments: We each find our own way to play KSP, we each have our own definition of fun.

Personally, I think base KSP is good enough for the masses. For those of us looking for a bit more difficulty, a touch more realism, RSS does that.

Would I like to be able to go through pre-flight checklists, setting various different switches to the right positions? No. But I know some people would.

[Moss]

Would I like to be able to go through pre-flight checklists, setting various different switches to the right positions? No. But I know some people would.

Actually that sounds great.

[bonyetty]

Sure, but the comparison between "sim" and "fun" is still dumb. It's on the level of "MechJeb" and "cheating". There are much better ways to make your point than contrasting "sim" and "fun

Now that's a stupid statement. I can speak quite well thank you. Meh. I agree as I have attempted to convey previously but this is a forum thread not a blog. Your previous "better comparison" is just as lacking in a detailed comparison.

[regex]

Your previous "better comparison" is just as lacking in a detailed comparison.

It's a better comparison because you cannot contrast "sim" with "fun" since "fun" is entirely subjective.

[selfish_meme]

Possibly the real problem is that KSP tries to fudge. If you are going to have a small planet have it. Don't fudge the gravity. If you want to make it easier then make it like mars. No need to then have 1 earth gravity but half the dv to orbit.

[ElJugador]

again...you are missing my point. I wasn't saying I wished KSP was a different game with more astronomical calculations to perform making the game bog down even more than it does...I was trying to point out that the way the game is NOW is fine, just why have kerbal, mun, minmus, eve etc...and not have earth, moon, mars, etc. Why have different values in terms of gravity, DV required, distance etc as opposed to just making our solar system the game.

I think that pretty much boils it down to what I'm saying. I myself and only me, don't want to learn and fill my head with useless info that means nothing other than in the game as it now stands KSP. I wish that the game was made around the real SS with the real values and physics associated. Instead, we have to load mods that pretty well but not completely do that for us. Which takes away from loading other mods for visual etc.

To this and everyone who shares the OP's sentiment: Fuhgeddaboutit. The devs are more-or-less commited to what we have now and so do I because I don't want it to take a Kraken-plagued eternity to get somewhere.

_{tl;dr go play with RO/RSS and be happy}

Edited June 14, 2015 by ElJugador

[SpaceNomad]

Funny enough, the scaled-down universe and the comic-like Kerbals were the reason, why I didn't buy KSP for quite a long time (until late 0.25). Being a hobby-astrophysicist, I thought "OMG. this is totally unrealistic, this can't feel right."

After having started playing KSP, I changed my mind pretty soon and was surprised how easily I could accept that "unrealism" and dive into the Kerbol system. The Kerbals don't feel childish for me, but create kind of a "don't take it too serious" humorous game atmosphere. And, IMHO, the scaled-down universe is just the right trade-off to make the game fun for a large enough audience to make KSP economically viable, while still staying true to physical realism and not sacrificing more important aspects of it.

And due to the extremely active modding community that not only offers a lot of mods for all parts of the game, but also allows to install many of them at the same time without compatibility issues (if you're playing Linux 64-bit that is ), you can easily adjust the game to your personal realism sweet spot. I've also felt limited by the game in some spots after only having played for a few weekends, but so far I've yet to encounter a deficit that couldn't be solved by a mod for me.

TL;DR: IMHO, the scaled-down universe hits just the right game vs. realism compromise for the un-modded base game.

[pandaman]

I tend to agree too that the 'stock' Kerbol system size is a fairly good compromise, I can fly around and explore Kerbin in a relative short time and I don't need to make rockets bigger, just because stuff is further away.

I wouldn't have a problem if the default system was bigger, but all it means currently is the numbers are smaller to go anywhere, the actual physics doesn't change.

There could be a valid case for a game set up option to select system size (like a simplified RSS), but it's probably not worth the devs time atm, if ever, when RSS is easily accessible to any who want it. I plan to give it a go at some point when I get a better pc.

[RAINCRAFTER]

Personally I would like to see this from the Mun

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/0/10075248.jpg

Can no one really solve Lazy8's problem? This thread is depressing.

[Tw1]

again...you are missing my point. I wasn't saying I wished KSP was a different game with more astronomical calculations to perform making the game bog down even more than it does...I was trying to point out that the way the game is NOW is fine, just why have kerbal, mun, minmus, eve etc...and not have earth, moon, mars, etc. Why have different values in terms of gravity, DV required, distance etc as opposed to just making our solar system the game.

I think one reason, is because of the kerbals. It would be odd if there are aliens living where you expect humans to be.

Some games do have "Earth after humans died out" as a setting, but IMHO, that's been done to death. Not saying a game which uses this setting must be bad, but unless you've got a really good reason for it, it's a little cliche.

I quite like it, it's different enough to be a fresh experience for people who know the real solar system, yet similar enough for there to be some relatable experience. Some places are comparable to parts of our real solar system, like the cratered Mun, and thin(ish) atmosphere'd Duna, but there's also room for variety and challenge- like the oddly high gravity of Tylo, or oxygen rich atmosphere Laythe.

It's probably worth noting, for me it's not so much about the numbers. When comparing the solar systems, my mind jumps first to aspects like geology, and appearance of the planets, rather than how much delta V you need to get to X.

They could have modeled Callisto, Ganymede, Enceladus, Ceres, etc, but ultimately, that would still offer a false experience.

Our knowledge of these places is incomplete. Someday, probes will visit these places.

A stay on a simulated Io might turn out to be as much of a fiction as a stay current KSP's Pol. But, what you experience on Pol, would always be true for Pol, while what you see on "Io" might not be true for the real Io.

Sure, KSP's planets aren't real, but I have friends who will happily talk about things on Tatooine, Krypton, Gallifrey, etc. KSP's planets belong to that category.

That said, I can definitelly see where you're coming from, though my taste differs.

I found RSS a little disappointing-driving on terrain was glitchy, and terrain was much blander than in stock KSP. A rocket is a delivery system, on the ground is where much of the exploration should happen. IMHO, a lack of stuff to do when you get to a planet is where KSP falls down.

http://i.imgur.com/QLuzxIT.png

Can no one really solve Lazy8's problem? This thread is depressing.

It's better if you stay really close. I had wondered for a while if rendering the planets at a lower field of view to make them seem wider would work, but after playing around with the FOV zoom, I think this could be a little disorientating.

Also, Lazy8, your name reminds be of Lazy 8 studios, who made Extrasolar. Now there's a good planetary exploration game.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Tw1

[lajoswinkler]

Install Outer Planets Mod. It will prolong the satisfaction. ( á° Üʖ á°)

[Orbital Vagabond]

I just wish squad made KSP based on real science and the real solar system. instead we have to install a lot of mods to make it realistic and even then it's not complete...for instance even with RO (realism overhaul) or RSS (real solar system) the planets are still named according to KSP....why? I'm guessing that it's hard coded in the base and can't be changed...minor but annoying.

The game actually is based on real science, specifically Newton's laws. Pretty much everything else gets derived from those three laws. By learning *how* those laws work in KSP, you can learn how the work in the real world. The only two truly important differences between KSP and real-life I can think of are:

• Specific numerical values (planetary radii, gravitational parameters, ISPs, etc)
  
• How atmospheres interact with vessels
  

Beyond that, things work in KSP pretty much exactly they way they would in real life. In fact, I would argue (as an academic in a different field) that learning on a different system (i.e. the Kerbol and it's satellites) is more educational than learning on a familiar system (the Solar system) because you can't simply recycle what previous engineers and scientists have used before. Solutions need to be novel.

I agree that there are still substantial shortcomings in KSP (no life-support, crappy heat management, etc), but I really can't see it as a 'missed opportunity' for tangential learning about spaceflight.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Orbital Vagabond

[Plume & Akakak]

This makes no sense. You will need back-up to defend your idea of what is "real" and "pertinent to real life".

(...)I am not a rocket scientist..lol. but I did have the privilege of working in the aerospace industry for some time. /brag on I worked on real Sat's. From design, manufacturing, testing to launch. I got to touch and be behind the scenes for launches from the Ariane V and Sea Launch. I've sent my family's pics up to space. I learned real attitude, direction and control mechanics, tested real prop systems, and established first comms after launch with our spacecraft. For real. /brag off

So for me to play this game and see the potential to really learn so much true REAL knowledge from it..is cool! I don't want to fill my head with kerbal physics and info that is "fake" I'd like to be learning real info.

I get it's just a game too (...)

I was trying to point out that the way the game is NOW is fine, just why have kerbal, mun, minmus, eve etc...and not have earth, moon, mars, etc.

I see where you're from and think I understand your point, though I can't agree with it.

I believe that a chess board and its set of rules do not qualify as "fake".

Coming from where I'm from, - trained artist background -, I'd add it is a symbolic and cultural object. It's not "just a game", it is a game. "Just" would imply a scale of values I definitely find dubious.

Kerbal Space Program can have many other purposes than bringing people to learn physics and maths. Its setting opens up to many other options, that don't have to be labelled as puerile and trivial. Some bearded, wrinkled-eyed men here have no issue with their little green muppets and their exotically-named worlds. : )

[RAINCRAFTER]

Wait, are you satisfied with Orbiter; Lazy8?

[Hobbes Novakoff]

I myself and only me, don't want to learn and fill my head with useless info that means nothing other than in the game as it now stands KSP.

Well, that's a good thing, because you aren't. The Rocket Equation, orbit techniques, etc. are all completely applicable to real life, and if you install FAR, well-It's hands-down the best aerodynamic simulation I've ever seen in a building game (yes, yes, X-plane, I know, but you can't build your own plane. Not in any sort of user-friendly way, anyway.). The only reason that KSP is unrealistic, physics-wise, is the size of the bodies and the n-body simulation (which literally cannot be done at any playable rate on a silicon-based system that isn't the size of a house).

And by the way, if there's anything that should be added to this game physics-wise, it's Space Engineers-style soft-body physics, or some kind of approximation. It always bothers me that when you hit an air intake, which should not contain any kind of combustible material, against the ground, at 10 m/s, it explodes violently instead of sort of being bent and crushed. Screw realistic planets, because frankly, if every number in the game was multiplied by 10, then Bam! Realism. (Okay, not really, but you see my point. The only reason some things are "realistic" and others are not is because of some numbers on the screen.)