why is 1.0.3 so easy

[FlowerChild]

I dispute that, given KSP's development history, but it's a moot point and not really the focus of my argument, which is that KSP is more focused on gameplay than making things more realistic.

I would dispute your dispute in that I don't think the focus is on gameplay but some weird hybrid between gameplay and realism that switches from feature to feature.

From a purely gameplay perspective, I don't personally much like the drag reduction in 1.03 as I think it trivializes getting mass to orbit which takes fun out of the game. The way it strikes me is that they wanted to make aero more realistic, but not the size of the solar system (which you correctly point out as a key issue here), and thereby messed up gameplay in the process. Thus I think it's the selective bias towards realistic and unrealistic individual elements that I think is interfering with obtaining a reasonable state of balance here, rather than embracing one approach or the other fully and working towards something that's consistent across the board.

IMO, if you want the solar system to be miniature for whatever reason (perhaps to minimize flight times or what have you), then it needs to be accepted that realism concessions will need to be made in other areas to retain some form of challenge. Higher drag than one would normally expect realistically was one way to help with that, which I feel 1.03 has essentially removed.

I think most of the balance issues we're seeing right now are due to Squad not wanting to accept anymore that they have a patently unrealistic basis to work on with the size of their solar system, and accommodate that with matching unrealistic features in other areas.

Edited June 23, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Nich]

Has anyone tried releasing parachutes in upper atmophere. with reduced drag they may not rip off the second they pop.

[herbal space program]

I really disagree.... I just did about 30 climbs to orbit since I came back home, with a lot of very different profile (from 800 at sea level to climb at 30° to the 1.0.2 way of doing it) and they all seem to work pretty well, I'm using more liquid fuel than before, but I can easily get 1300 m/s at 25K on airbreathing, and my i've got a profile that does 1475 (accelerate at 9000 m, climb at 1100 m/s just enough to avoid burning up, that should be around 15°). All in all I think it's slightly easier, but you have to forget about the 1.0.2 profile and see what works best. Quick save before entering hypersonic to try different things.

I guess I should clarify that when I say harder I mean less efficient. I am trying to make the longest-range SSTO I can, and while I have to admit I have only spent a couple of hours working on it so far, the best I have been able to until now is 24% fuel payload fraction on orbit. My previous model in 1.0.2, which could get 30% on a good climb, barely flies at all in 1.0.3. Adding wings and removing intakes, I've found that the RAPIER engine does seem to be able to go a bit higher than it could before on air, but its nerfy thrust at lower elevations and the lower ISP has my air-breathing climb sucking up substantially more fuel than it did before. Maybe I still just need to re-find the optimal lift-drag balance for 1.0.3, or else revisit shipping a TJ engine instead of just RAPIERs, but my experience so far has been somewhat discouraging.

[boxman]

Well, there's your problem. They wanted it as realistic as possible but they never put realism first.

Scaling down the solar system does not have to really affect realism that much when they balance everything else correctly.

And this does not say anything about whether they aim for realism. It is for sure leaning mostly towards realism.

[Captain H@dock]

I guess I should clarify that when I say harder I mean less efficient. I am trying to make the longest-range SSTO I can, and while I have to admit I have only spent a couple of hours working on it so far, the best I have been able to until now is 24% fuel payload fraction on orbit. My previous model in 1.0.2, which could get 30% on a good climb, barely flies at all in 1.0.3. Adding wings and removing intakes, I've found that the RAPIER engine does seem to be able to go a bit higher than it could before on air, but its nerfy thrust at lower elevations and the lower ISP has my air-breathing climb sucking up substantially more fuel than it did before. Maybe I still just need to re-find the optimal lift-drag balance for 1.0.3, or else revisit shipping a TJ engine instead of just RAPIERs, but my experience so far has been somewhat discouraging.

After flying my tanker SSTO (refuel orbit depot), I think you're right. We might loose a bit in term of payload fraction. Either that we need to add more engines than before. It is quite hard to accelerate on big planes while keeping at high enough pitch to not spend too much time in the low atmo. I'll probably need a few days to get a definitive figure on the efficiency loss.

[boxman]

One problem is that as we get better at the game the early part of the game gets easier because we understand how to make rockets.

It isn't getting easier, we're just more experienced. If you want to make it harder you can tweak or mod it.

As a side note you can, for a few thousand dollars, make a RL rocket that could get sub orbital if you had permits, access to rocket fuel and a kerbal class disregard for your own safety.

Ksp plays closer to realism than just about any game out there. You want it harder then mod it. FAR, deadly reentry, real solar system, life support, they're a lot of fun. Don't mistake your better familiarity with the game for a decline in difficulty. Launch to orbit and return are harder than they were in 0.90.

Try an old version with the old landing gears that had no suspension going at more like 3m/s is most likely going to ruin your day

[maccollo]

Personally, I feel the kerbin system should be bigger, specifically 3 times bigger (73% higher deltaV requirements). Then the performance you can get out of a single stage should more or less reflect real life performance, that is the deltaV you can cram out of a single stage is right around the deltaV required to reach orbit.

It would also make it simpler to fly single burn ascent profiles at max thrust, which I enjoy a lot more than having to fumble around with the time acceleration and throttle before I make it to orbit.

[regex]

Scaling down the solar system does not have to really affect realism that much when they balance everything else correctly.

"Game balance" does not exist IRL, therefore it cannot be a primary consideration if you put realism first.

And this does not say anything about whether they aim for realism. It is for sure leaning mostly towards realism.

I never said anything about Squad aiming for realism, which they clearly do in certain cases, I said something about them putting realism first.

I'm not arguing that KSP doesn't have realistic elements or saying that it's a terrible game, I'm saying that Squad doesn't put realism first and that the root of the problem brought up in this thread, namely delta-V to orbit and the perceived difficulty decrease therein, lies in an unrealistically tiny planet called Kerbin which is now working with a fairly realistic aerodynamic simulation along with the easy-mode starting condition of a fantastic planetary rotational rate.

[klgraham1013]

People who play learn *real concepts*

* Oberth effect

* Mass ratios/dV/the rocket equation/Isp

* transfer windows/hohman transfers/bieliptic transfers

...

etc

Let's bare in mind, the game doesn't teach these things. Players must look elsewhere to really learn how to play KSP.

[Slugy]

from your writing I have deduced that you are either a kid or consider yourself to have been better than other kids. Regardless, read up on "a tall chinese" if you will, please.

Well thought out argument, with a clear explanation of your position: well done.

[sal_vager]

Personal attacks are not something we want on these forums gentlemen, stick to the topic of the thread please.

[klgraham1013]

Okay, what you say is true but what recent games haven't released in that same unfinished state?

-snip-

That other companies have shipped broken games is not an excuse.

Edited June 23, 2015 by klgraham1013

[HvP]

Realism for what... Earth? It's not Earth it's Kerbin, a different planet altogether in a different system.

Why should we expect a rocket that performs well on Earth to perform well on Kerbin, or vice versa? Why should we expect a similar launch profile, air density, or jet engine performance? Earth and Venus are about as similar as any two planets in our real solar system and yet I highly doubt you could expect any rocket designed for flight on Earth to work properly in the atmosphere of Venus. Why should it do so on Kerbin?

You have to learn to design within the parameters of the system you are designing for.

[Slugy]

Let's bare in mind, the game doesn't teach these things. Players must look elsewhere to really learn how to play KSP.

It does make folks go and look up/learn about those things - which is pretty good going.

And many will at least get some idea of why you need stages (although less so now ...) and that you don't get to orbit by going straight up without looking anything up.

[klgraham1013]

It does make folks go and look up/learn about those things - which is pretty good going.

And many will at least get some idea of why you need stages (although less so now ...) and that you don't get to orbit by going straight up without looking anything up.

How many have become frustrated, unsure of what they're doing wrong because the game gives no feedback and no instruction? How many stay in the Kerbin SOI because they don't know how to get to Duna in an efficient manner? I'm a firm believer that you should not have to leave a game to learn the basic mechanics of a game.

-edit-

Let's not even mention the lack of information KSP provides to its user.

[basic.syntax]

Squad tries to use the stock craft as a check between versions. I took out the Kerbal X, and I can tell 1.0.3 is a bit more forgiving, because I almost made it back to Kerbin from a Mun landing. 150dv short of a Kerbin aerobrake But I'm not the most efficient pilot; I think with a better ascent, I might have had enough fuel to get back. I'm sure that's their goal with the Kerbal X: it should be a round-trip craft, with good piloting. I contrast that with 1.0.2, where I didn't have quite enough to complete Mun circularization, after Mun liftoff.

[regex]

Realism for what... Earth?

Yeah, that's generally what "realism" means in the context of a game, accurate or true to real life.

It's not Earth it's Kerbin, a different planet altogether in a different system universe.

FTFY. Make of it what you will, it's caused no end of discussion about "game balance" and "realism" around here.

Earth and Venus are about as similar as any two planets in our real solar system and yet I highly doubt you could expect any rocket designed for flight on Earth to work properly in the atmosphere of Venus.

Earth and Venus operate under the same universal laws and we can account for those. We can say that a rocket designed for Earth won't work on Venus because Venus' atmospheric pressure is greater than the chamber pressure of most rockets so actually getting an Earth lifting engine to ignite could be a problem. The Kerbol system adopts some of our universal laws and makes up complete bologna otherwise, so it is not realistic. Whether that is good or bad for the game is really up to the poaster.

[rodion_herrera]

I have to agree that the v1.0.3 and v1.0.4 Kerbin atmosphere seems to be more forgiving. This Apollo-style stack I made in v1.x.x originally used up about a third of propellant on the third stage to achieve circularization prior to tMI burn, but today when I loaded it up and tried it, I barely used any at all.

Edited June 23, 2015 by rodion_herrera

[selfish_meme]

Squad tries to use the stock craft as a check between versions. I took out the Kerbal X, and I can tell 1.0.3 is a bit more forgiving, because I almost made it back to Kerbin from a Mun landing. 150dv short of a Kerbin aerobrake But I'm not the most efficient pilot; I think with a better ascent, I might have had enough fuel to get back. I'm sure that's their goal with the Kerbal X: it should be a round-trip craft, with good piloting. I contrast that with 1.0.2, where I didn't have quite enough to complete Mun circularization, after Mun liftoff.

Theres actually a KerbalX challenge to get the craft as far as possible, there has been talk of Eeloo

[Slugy]

How many have become frustrated, unsure of what they're doing wrong because the game gives no feedback and no instruction? How many stay in the Kerbin SOI because they don't know how to get to Duna in an efficient manner? I'm a firm believer that you should not have to leave a game to learn the basic mechanics of a game.

-edit-

Let's not even mention the lack of information KSP provides to its user.

I'd generally agree that you should be able to play a game without outside reference - but to get the most out of many games outside references/tools are the norm for more complex ones. Think of character builds and strategies for MMOs.

I've not played the tutorials, I did assume they covered the basics now.

A basic dV readout in the hangar should exist I think, and perhaps some sort of intercept planner in map/tracking station.

[herbal space program]

Squad tries to use the stock craft as a check between versions. I took out the Kerbal X, and I can tell 1.0.3 is a bit more forgiving, because I almost made it back to Kerbin from a Mun landing. 150dv short of a Kerbin aerobrake But I'm not the most efficient pilot; I think with a better ascent, I might have had enough fuel to get back. I'm sure that's their goal with the Kerbal X: it should be a round-trip craft, with good piloting. I contrast that with 1.0.2, where I didn't have quite enough to complete Mun circularization, after Mun liftoff.

I don't know about that particular craft, but I was able to get to the Mun and back with an SSTO in 1.0.2 with fuel to spare. I'm not so sure I can do it in 1.0.3.

[NathanKell]

The ratio of propellant burn in airbreathing vs propellant burnt by rockets went up, but so did payload fraction (since you can airbreathe to a much higher velocity now, and/or use fewer engines).

[herbal space program]

The ratio of propellant burn in airbreathing vs propellant burnt by rockets went up, but so did payload fraction (since you can airbreathe to a much higher velocity now, and/or use fewer engines).

How many hours have you spent testing that pronouncement? I have put in a good 10-12 hours testing it for 1.0.3 at this point, and I conclude that payload fraction for space planes has most definitely NOT increased. Moreover AFAICT everybody on this forum who has actually spent a significant amount of time time trying it concurs. It makes no difference at all how well the new RAPIER engines work at the top of the envelope if they can't get up there in an efficient way in the first place. My 47 ton interplanetary plane used to sail right up to the transonic realm with 4 RAPIERs and a nuke, using very little fuel, and now no matter how I tweak the amount of wings and/or intakes, it struggles to climb to 12km sub-sonically. This significantly reduced thrust at the low end, combined with the HALVING of their ISP, has severely nerfed the PF of the RAPIER-only designs. In 1.0.2, I was able to get a PF on LKO of 32.5% overall, 30% in just fuel, with 4km/s deltaV remaining. If you show me a plane that can do that in 1.0.3 I'll eat my space helmet!

Edited June 24, 2015 by herbal space program

[Mat2ch]

Well, I'm just back from trying out my one SSTO design which I improve and rebuild since 0.90. It seems to be all about the ascend profile now. And it doesn't look very forgiving. If you're going to slow with the RAPIERs you'll end up burning too much fuel in the lower atmosphere. If you go to fast you end up burning too much fuel... you now the drill. I just tried this profile which worked pretty well actually: Climb to 10 km, but never let your speed go below 150 m/s in the lower atmosphere, let it increase a bit so that you're going around 250 m/s at 10 km, then almost level out and gain speed. I got to 1500 m/s before my speed was decreasing, because the atmosphere got to thin. Nothing burned up. Switched mode (I always do this manually and close all the intakes, too) pulled a bit up and when I noticed my apoapsis increasing rapidly I throttled down to 50 %. Before that I tried a too steep aproach and was too slow in the lower atmosphere, didn't even make an orbit. This time I was left with 700 m/s of fuel... (ok, and I docked to my space station, which will be deorbited soon. Stupid design...)

[Slugy]

How many hours have you spent testing that pronouncement? I have put in a good 10-12 hours testing it for 1.0.3 at this point, and I conclude that payload fraction for space planes has most definitely NOT increased. Moreover AFAICT everybody on this forum who has actually spent a significant amount of time time trying it concurs. It makes no difference at all how well the new RAPIER engines work at the top of the envelope if they can't get up there in an efficient way in the first place. My 47 ton interplanetary plane used to sail right up to the transonic realm with 4 RAPIERs and a nuke, using very little fuel, and now no matter how I tweak the amount of wings and/or intakes, it struggles to climb to 12km sub-sonically. This significantly reduced thrust at the low end, combined with the HALVING of their ISP, has severely nerfed the PF of the RAPIER-only designs. In 1.0.2, I was able to get a PF on LKO of 32.5% overall, 30% in just fuel, with 4km/s deltaV remaining. If you show me a plane that can do that in 1.0.3 I'll eat my space helmet!

Well this is better than was managed in 1.02, with a payload fraction of over 41%:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116729-Stock-Payload-Fraction-Challenge-1-0-4-Edition?p=2039664&viewfull=1#post2039664

After you eat your helmet (ahem ....) try more wings again - they seem a lot less draggy, as do many things, and build speed lower if you need to - 4 rapiers should push 47t very easily.