Poll for the KSP Forum community - stock dV and TWR readouts

[yorshee]

Stock dV (and TWR) readouts were probably the one feature of 1.0 that I was most looking forward to - and I was super disappointed when it was seemingly forgotten about. I haven't heard anything about it in months now and I'm worried it's been scrapped. In my opinion this is something essential that needs to be put into the stock game asap...

I want to know the forum community's opinions on this, as I know lots of other people were looking forward to it too. I have some rebuttals for common reasons why this shouldn't be included in the game too:

1) These confusing numbers will confuse new players too much.

Yeah, it probably will, which is why it doesn't need to be in some huge window like how KER does it. A little section in the bottom of the Engineer's Report is sufficient - not too in-your-face to scare away new players, and the info is still there for us folks who would like to see how far our crafts can go without a spreadsheet or a mod...

Plus, KSP already has tons of confusing lingo that might dissuade new players, such as engine specific impulse, planets' mass, area, escape velocity, and gravitational parameter, and even the delta-V required to perform a maneuver (why this but no dV for the craft itself!?) - a lot of this information is totally useless (and a bit daunting) to new players yet it's still in the game anyways so this is no excuse to not have stock dV readouts.

There could always be a new tutorial fitting into the game that explains what these numbers mean, too.

2) It would be impossible to fit into career mode.

Not at all! I'm not a fan of how KER does it where you can just slap on a part that you get at the start of a career save and you instantly have all the data. You could get the dV readouts in-flight by having an Engineer of a certain level in your roster, or by having a high-tech probe core (which is how KER also does it, though with KER the Engineers can be any level), or you could have this info in the vehicle construction mode by upgrading a building to a certain level, which is how maneuver nodes and patched conics are given to you in career. I'm not too sure which building would be the best choice...the VAB/SPH itself, tracking station, mission control, or the R&D building? Maybe a combination of the three!

You could get different references for TWR and atmospheric drag losses, like how KER lets you toggle between atmospheric and vacuum modes and also lets you change the planet you're getting your TWR for. This could be accomplished by performing a gravity scan and atmospheric pressure scans with the GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector and PresMat Barometer parts and transmitting/recovering the data.

3) I can play fine without this information.

Ok, that's fine, but you probably only got there with a LOT of trial-and-error, having to scrap lots of missions because they just didn't get far enough. This is terrible for career mode because you could put your entire budget into a craft that you were hoping could accomplish some contracts on Tylo, only to have it all thrown away because you underestimated the amount of fuel you needed to land there. It's incredibly demotivating and I think this will drive off a lot of newer players more than having some numbers in the corner of the screen.

What is your opinion on this? If you still don't think it should be in the game, let me know why you think so.

(posting this in General KSP discussion because it isn't a new suggestion/feature, I just want to know the community's opinion on this)

[Mat2ch]

I'm totally for YES. Please, add this.

This will not confuse new players if there's an explaination what it means and how to use it. This doesn't need a long text, just a small message. I'm currently playing a game where you have informationaly videos. Just add something like "Milestones" (now named "Records") and with every Milestone you get a video and new functions. Like: "Our scientists have discovered that it's best to not carry all the heavy and empty stuff to space!" or "We've discovered that it's good to have enough power to carry weight into space. We call it TWR <add small explaination here with some badly drawn sketches>"

I know you guys from Squad can do videos, I've seen them. And these are small, don't have to be long or in any way of good graphics. Just some text, maybe renderings and sketches and that's it.

And this could continue, until all the important parts are explained. (Like Latitude and Longitude ) And then you get this information in a HUD, like KER does.

[cantab]

I voted "yes", but promptly had doubts.

The advantages are well-stated. The game didn't hand me delta-V on a plate, it wasn't a number spat out of some black box, so I learnt the rocket equation and applied it myself, well before I got KER. On the other hand the game did hand me on a plate the delta-V it takes to get from one orbit to another, it's as easy as setting two manoeuvre nodes, and I've never learnt to do that myself. I think I may be worse off because of it.

Then again, the game doesn't tell me how to find an interplanetary transfer window, and I've also never learnt to work those out myself, I rely on mods or external tools.

On balance I think I'll still say yes, but it's not an "all good" thing.

Career mode unlocks I don't see as that useful, because I don't regard career as appropriate for novice players.

[Mako]

So, I admittedly have not read through your whole post, but from the bit I skimmed through I have to say you make good points. My first thought is that the newly announced, seemingly in-game, wiki would be perfect for explaining the addition of such numbers. So if there was ever a time to add this it seems like the wiki addition would be perfect.

[Frozen_Heart]

I can't play without readouts. I like engineering, not guessing.

KE is one of the two mods I use.

[pandaman]

I voted yes.

Maybe for career mode it could be introduced as a relatively early upgrade.

To me, even for Kerbals, once the the first basic steps of rocketry have been taken they would want a way to measure how much extra 'welly' they get from adding more boosters. And want to work out if they have added enough or need to add more. Trial and error is all well and good, but once funds become an issue then even Kerbals will want to try and 'design' a bit before committing to spending loads of funds on building a big rocket.

[sal_vager]

Guys, girls, Squad have already said they are looking into adding this, they know you want it but it's not going to come any sooner than when it's done, they are still working on just making KSP run on Unity5.x as it does on Unity4.x so please be patient.

[pandaman]

Thanks Sal.

As much as most if us seem to think it should be included and would like it now or sooner, as you said, it's not top priority and nor should it be. It's better to integrate it well than to just slap it on to get it in there.

[yorshee]

Guys, girls, Squad have already said they are looking into adding this, they know you want it but it's not going to come any sooner than when it's done, they are still working on just making KSP run on Unity5.x as it does on Unity4.x so please be patient.

We haven't heard anything of it in months now so I'm still doubtful about it.

A small mention in the devnotes that says something like 'we're focusing on Unity 5 at the moment but we haven't forgotten about this!' would be sufficient but nothing has been said about it.

[cfds]

Since you mentioned the Engineer's Report where the only correct information is the part count: Do you really want to have SQUAD implement this? The best case scenario is that it will not interfere with KER...

[yorshee]

Since you mentioned the Engineer's Report where the only correct information is the part count: Do you really want to have SQUAD implement this? The best case scenario is that it will not interfere with KER...

Yeah, I want them to implement it since it's an essental feature. KER itself can be inaccurate and can glitch out sometimes, especially when it comes to SSTO's, but that doesn't make it any less useful.

[klgraham1013]

I like engineering, not guessing.

Basically this.

- - - Updated - - -

These confusing numbers will confuse new players too much.

It's OK for games to be hard.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, girls, Squad have already said they are looking into adding this, they know you want it but it's not going to come any sooner than when it's done, they are still working on just making KSP run on Unity5.x as it does on Unity4.x so please be patient.

Sometimes things get cut. With no word on the subject, it's reasonable that some of us might wonder what happened.

- - - Updated - - -

As much as most if us seem to think it should be included and would like it now or sooner, as you said, it's not top priority and nor should it be.

Completely disagree. These basic features should have been in the beta.

[Wjolcz]

Yes. It should have been implemented a long time ago. It wouldn't be confusing for new players if the game got a few appropriate tutorials.

Also KAC.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Veeltch

[Columbia]

To be honest, I never trust delta-V readouts, and in my case, it's quite immersive to add as part of the challenge.

I only kept KER because of it's other readings, such as Apoapsis and such.

[DocMoriarty]

I'm all for it although I rarely use mods and not KER or Mechjeb, just chatterer for immersion and Kerbal Alarm Clock for management. So currently I really do it kerbalwise, that is educated guess on dV and rule of thumb for TWR. Rule of Thumb = 12 x Takeoff Weight t = needed thrust kn for takeoff on Kerbin (actually it's 9.81 x TOW to hoover and anything better will make you go up). Example 200t rocket needs 2400kn+ for a good first stage, but anything 2000kn+ will do. They should have added this actually long ago and instead of the (foreseeable) totally superflous engineer report which usually lists 90% unapplying messages for my crafts.

[mattinoz]

Hopefully the complete rework of the staging code and UI will mean we see dV and TWR incorporated in the new UI.

Ideally to me each stage that add or removes engines would have a widget with TWR either as a hard number or even as a less accurate series of pips.

Also dV should be in there as well just as given.

Yes it's something that players should learn but really it's laborious and boring and very much un-fun once you've done it a few.

If not full dV to start with at least give us dry mass / wet mass and take the most tedious part of the process out.

Then expand it and make the calculation more complete as the VAB upgrades.

[regex]

2) It would be impossible to fit into career mode.

Not at all! I'm not a fan of how KER does it where you can just slap on a part that you get at the start of a career save and you instantly have all the data. You could get the dV readouts in-flight by having an Engineer of a certain level in your roster, or by having a high-tech probe core (which is how KER also does it, though with KER the Engineers can be any level), or you could have this info in the vehicle construction mode by upgrading a building to a certain level, which is how maneuver nodes and patched conics are given to you in career. I'm not too sure which building would be the best choice...the VAB/SPH itself, tracking station, mission control, or the R&D building? Maybe a combination of the three!

Sorry, paywalling this feature in career is ... dumb, to put it bluntly. Humans knew how to calculate delta-V and TWR decades before they actually put anything into orbit, much less flew anything under its own power, and I don't see why Kerbals would be any different especially since, after the formulas have been derived, you are left with simple math. Simple math should never be paywalled

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Yes! Yes! Yes! (You get the idea.)

[yorshee]

Sorry, paywalling this feature in career is ... dumb, to put it bluntly. Humans knew how to calculate delta-V and TWR decades before they actually put anything into orbit, much less flew anything under its own power, and I don't see why Kerbals would be any different especially since, after the formulas have been derived, you are left with simple math. Simple math should never be paywalled

This isn't about realism, it's about gameplay - the same reason why the ability to use manoeuvre nodes isn't given to you straight from the start.

[regex]

This isn't about realism, it's about gameplay - the same reason why the ability to use manoeuvre nodes isn't given to you straight from the start.

Personally I think that was a really bad gameplay decision. It's like the game is designed to become easier the further you get in career mode, which is terrible for new players and downright backwards from how most other games progress (usually the difficulty remains about the same or increases).

[mattinoz]

Personally I think that was a really bad gameplay decision. It's like the game is designed to become easier the further you get in career mode, which is terrible for new players and downright backwards from how most other games progress (usually the difficulty remains about the same or increases).

Sure it gets easier in one aspect but it opens the door to different challenges that have their own hardness.

To me it's more about breaking the learning curve in to understandable chunks and giving new players the info they need to learn how that information fits the mix.

Even setting challenges to help push the understanding.

[regex]

To me it's more about breaking the learning curve in to understandable chunks and giving new players the info they need to learn how that information fits the mix.

Even setting challenges to help push the understanding.

I disagree and I find that flimsy reasoning, perhaps because of how I enjoy and learn games. To me, career mode is the "challenge mode" you play once you've cut your teeth in the sandbox. Unfortunately it does not, in any way, perform that role. There is no real challenge in career mode beyond massive mountains of grind (which isn't really a challenge). Time considerations, such as budgets, upkeep, and life support, would go a long way to providing actual challenge.

Letting the player in on information is a great thing in a game about spaceflight. KSP obfuscates, paywalls, or never bothers to provide critical information that should be available to the player from the start.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

It's very silly that this isn't already in the game. It only helps flatten the learning curve. I can't play without it

[rcp27]

I don't mind the idea of not having it initially, as your first "try to get to orbit" and even "try to land on Mun" missions can be achieved relatively easily without it. Once you start trying to do more serious orbital construction and longer distance missions, though, I'd like to have them. I'd support tying them into one of the building upgrades. Either R&D, indicating a better understanding of rocket science, or the VAB/SPH upgrades would make sense.

[Joonatan1998]

I hope they make it a difficulty option.