Would you buy a DLC (or a whole new game) for KSP that was for realism?

[klgraham1013]

No, because I'm against DLCs that cost money.

If the content is good, I think it's worth paying for. Having such a broad opinion on DLC seems a bit...unreasonable.

nope. for me, KSP is a game and for fun. it's fine like it is now.

People still using the game / fun versus realism argument. It's not a sliding scale, people.

But anyway, would you buy a DLC for KSP that was exactly like Realism Overhaul but not buggy and insanely laggy?

Now, on to the question at hand. I don't think so, but it has nothing to do with an anti-paid-DLC dogma. KSP is a great backbone to a flawed game. (Despite what the reviewers say.) This is nothing against the people at Squad. I'm sure they're lovely, just a bit inexperienced in game development. That being said, I'd have to wait for the communities review of said DLC before making a purchase. Squad still has a bit more to prove before being a company I will blindly buy from.

Edited September 22, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Gaarst]

Not sure personally, I really enjoy playing with RSS, Real Fuels, life support, and all sorts of things included in RO, but for some reason I don't like playing RO itself. :/

Anyway if this contains a stable visual enhancements for RSS (RVE doesn't work for me, RC does wierd things and EVE doesn't do what it's supposed to), then just take my money !

[Whirligig Girl]

It would have to have humans or else not have the "realistic" planets be Earth solar system.

Kerbals on Kerbin make sense.

Kerbals on Kerbin XL make sense.

Humans on Earth make sense.

Humans on Earth Mini make sense.

Kerbals on Earth don't make sense.

Kerbals on Earth Mini make a little bit of sense.

Humans on Kerbin don't make sense.

Humans on Kerbin XL don't make sense.

So I think, unless they want that DLC to not be a "Kerbal" space program, a realism mode should be a Kerbal solar system with 10x scale and a bit more similarity to Sol system.

Planets and moons further apart and with axial tilt, Kerbin with 130 km atmosphere height, Duna with a thinner atmosphere, new/different moons for Jool, and outer gas planets and moons, more realistic and less cartoony textures for planets. (Though not too much less, because it would still be using stockalike parts style, I would imagine)

I would love a professionally made Realism Overhaul in the Kerbolar System. Real Fuels, FAR-like aero, life support, all that jazz. The mods currently available seem so clunky, with parts that don't always fit, and ugly U.I.s for some of the gameplay mods, and few stockalike parts. That's why I prefer using SMURFF and stock/stockalike parts.

The idea with an official RO DLC should be that you should be able to completely recreate some historic or interesting missions from real life in the game, even if the places you go look different. Duna is much more red than Mars, Jool is green, but both should accurately represent their counterparts authentically. In fact, Duna has to get rid of Ike. Maybe Ike can become a fourth moon of Jool. Mars gets two asteroid moons. Gilly can stay around Eve, but Eve has to become smaller (to scale I mean, obviously with the rescale it would become larger) and gain a thicker atmosphere.

Maybe the solution is to have several different types of starter systems. Kerbin, KerbinXL, KerbinROXL, EarthMini, and EarthRO. Kerbin is the stock game as it is. Kerbin XL is just the planets as they are rescaled by 10x. Kerbin Realism Overhaul XL is Kerbol system rekerjiggered into a better representation of the Sol system, EarthMini is the Solar System downscaled by 10x, and EarthRO is Earth Solar System in full scale with the Realism Overhaul stuff. For Earth systems to work, there has to be the possibility of have human astronauts and space center personnel.

TL;DR I like the idea, mostly because the only reason I don't use Realism Mods is because they feel unpolished and clunky.

Edited September 22, 2015 by GregroxMun

[p1t1o]

People still using the game / fun versus realism argument. It's not a sliding scale, people.

Isn't it?

Anyway if this contains a stable visual enhancements for RSS (RVE doesn't work for me, RC does wierd things and EVE doesn't do what it's supposed to), then just take my money !

Actually, I could more easily get behind a visual re-vamp than a realism one, a DLC that unifies/stockifies the benefits of mods like planetshine, EVE, scatterer, astronomers something-or-other, etc etc, whilst leaving out conflicting/optional/duplicated/buggy parts. Those who didn't buy it wouldn't be missing out on anything other than window-dressing, but remaining worthwhile for those that do.

And since many realism mods rely also on visual upgrades, having a unified, official visual enhancement could make it easier for those maintaining realism based mods and for those that wish to use them.

[Kobymaru]

nope. for me, KSP is a game and for fun. it's fine like it is now.

Believe it or not, "realistic" is not an antonym for "fun".

For me for example, solving more realistic engineering problems is a lot more fun than working around game limitations.

[Gaarst]

Actually, I could more easily get behind a visual re-vamp than a realism one, a DLC that unifies/stockifies the benefits of mods like planetshine, EVE, scatterer, astronomers something-or-other, etc etc, whilst leaving out conflicting/optional/duplicated/buggy parts. Those who didn't buy it wouldn't be missing out on anything other than window-dressing, but remaining worthwhile for those that do.

And since many realism mods rely also on visual upgrades, having a unified, official visual enhancement could make it easier for those maintaining realism based mods and for those that wish to use them.

Renaissance Compilation was kind of a compilation of several visual mods, but it is unsupported since 0.90. Although, Proot (KSPRC's dev) seems to be working on a new version. But still no visual mod dedicated to RSS though and I doubt any visual mods made for Kerbin work well with RSS.

[p1t1o]

Renaissance Compilation was kind of a compilation of several visual mods, but it is unsupported since 0.90. Although, Proot (KSPRC's dev) seems to be working on a new version. But still no visual mod dedicated to RSS though and I doubt any visual mods made for Kerbin work well with RSS.

Hence why I think there's more reason for a visual DLC than a realism one

[Umlüx]

Believe it or not, "realistic" is not an antonym for "fun".

For me for example, solving more realistic engineering problems is a lot more fun than working around game limitations.

and thats cool too!

but the question was if I would buy a realism dlc. and MY answer is no, its fine as it is i simply stated my personal opinion.

[dr_jt]

If I wanted more realism I'd still be using Orbitersim.

[Guest]

I want the current KSP game to be finished before working on DLC's or sequels. What I mean by this is I want all the balancing done and major bugs worked out. The atmospheric heating model need work. I think the game sounds still need work. And it would be nice if we could get some info readouts like KER provides in the flight scene for the stock game. And better IVA.

Once the game is finished and polished, then if Squad wants to make RSS DLC or any other DLC that adds to the game, but is not necessary to play, then I think that would be great. I hope they all get filthy rich from this game because it's a great game.

But as far as the poll is worded, no, I don't particularly want realistic DLC, but I like that idea of a sequel with new stuff to explore. So, I'm not going to vote in this one because the choices don't match what I want.

[regex]

No offense but thats a gaudy and a not so elegant ship in my eyes. Also my rig may implode on that many parts.

Your rig can't handle a ~60 part launch vehicle? I feel sorry for you.

It's worth pointing out that I would never buy a realism DLC made by Squad themselves. The art would be substandard and the entire thing would be poorly optimized. A competitor or partner? You bet.

Edited September 22, 2015 by regex

[moogoob]

I can't see DLC working for a game like KSP, unless it was en entirely new solar system, or a different (wartime?) career/campaign mode.

And I bought the mission packs (what we USED to call DLC bigger than just horse armour back in the day) for Skyrim - I love them, they both add lots to the game once you're starting to get to the end of the stock content.

If I wanted more realism I'd still be using Orbitersim.

I still have an install. Rarely boot it up, though. KSP's my current space flight itch scratcher.

[NWDogg]

Yep, I'd definitely buy that DLC. I'd buy any DLC that Squad put out right now, to be honest, no matter what content it contained. A Realism Overhaul-style expansion/add-on/spinoff title is the one I'd be most interested in.

I think, though, that to be an effective and valuable DLC, this theoretical Realism Expansion should be a completely separate executable from the base KSP game. When you load the game, the entire experience should be based around the real solar system, with all references to Kerbals and the Kerbal system replaced with real-world references (planets, correct orbits, humans, etc...). Aside from simply changing everything in the game, the point of having a separate executable would be to alleviate the resource restrictions that KSP faces now--with all the new things that a proper Realism expansion would bring, I don't think it could run side-by-side with the entire vanilla game without making major sacrifices (even with the Unity 5 and possible x64 updates).

Don't take me the wrong way, I think the current Realism Overhaul mod set is amazing, but it really could be so much more. So much more, in fact, that I'd be willing to pay KSP's full price or more for this theoretical expansion or spinoff.

[match]

I consider the mods that I use DLC and donate a few bucks to the author. This is of course optional, but I like think of it as buying them a drink, or lunch (but not a vacation on a Jamaican beach!)

[Hagen von Tronje]

If you mean is RO good enough that if Squad had developed it internally and marketed it as $5-10 DLC, would I have bought it? Probably, I bought several Mount & Blade expansions that were more or less the same as a total conversion/overhaul mod by the developer and think they were pretty good.

RO already exists and is free, but on the other hand if Squad released an "official" RSS with highly detailed planet maps, named features (i.e. if you visit Olympus Mons, your biome is Olympus Mons, etc), and integrated visual and environmental physics upgrades (detailed and animated Jovian atmosphere, real wind storms, etc), I'd pay money for that one feature provided it would be compatable with existing mods (or mods were equally easy to develop for it so that a strong modding community were inevitable). The main thing I find myself craving, whether it's stock or RSS, is surface detail.

[Lord Aurelius]

The base game still needs to be finished before I would consider spending money on DLC or another Squad game. For any DLC to be worth it to me, it would really need to be more of expansion packs that add a lot to the game.

As far as realism, I would rather have that as a standalone game rather than an addon for KSP. KSP is cartoony and not entirely serious, and any attempt to reconcile a serious realism overhaul with the stock game would likely require a total conversion anyways, so I would rather have that as a separate game where the engine can be tweaked to account for the additional realism rather than shoehorning it into the current game (basically what RSS/RO does already).

That said, I do think that stock KSP could benefit from a little more realism, especially by adding life support (to fix the current balance issues between probes vs manned missions) and possibly the option to increase the planet sizes (would make for a great difficulty slider option).

[regex]

would make for a great difficulty option slider

It's not really adding "difficulty", it's adding "difference".

[panzer1b]

Nah, the only thing id actually pay for (although i still think it should be free) would be a vast and i mean VAST performance increase over older models. What id do to have 20 vs 20 capital ships each in excess of 1000 parts shooting each other at the same time.

As for DLC, i feel that if there was a new game that was payed to get it, itd have to be separate (regardless of whether it used KSP as a base or different engine) as its fragment the community too much. If you want to use someone else's craft and it had say parts that were locked (as in you need to buy DLC to use em), itd be really rage inducing and split up people too much. Its already annoying that i have to download a mod, remove a part, and then remove the mod for many crafts (people seem to love adding MJ or KER parts to ships and i have to remove them as i dont use these mods), imagine if we all had to buy something to touch many craft.

Im not against the idea of giving squad more money (they deserve it after the updates and improvements theyve done (and hopefully will keep doing), but i do not agree that DLC is the way to go. Perhaps a feature like customized kerbals in game, or something purely visual like clouds i could see working as DLC since it wont make one person unable to interact with another, but anything gameplay related hell no!

[strigon]

Not against dlc at all but in this case the idea of almost forcing realism onto players who dont want it is bad. Yes DLC paid or not is in theory optional but almost kinda tries to force itself

In this case, not at all.

You might have a case if it were simply new parts, a new planet, or something along those lines, but what is being discussed is essentially an entirely different game. It would have entirely different parts, physics, graphics, and presumably a whole slew of new challenges, while hoisting out the old ones. It's certainly not forcing realism; that would be if they put out a game update with RSS incorporated, with no choice. This is the exact opposite; the old game is still intact and as functional as it ever was, but there's a more realistic option out there if you're into that sort of thing. That's not forcing anyone to do anything.

And this DLC doesn't force itself because it doesn't objectively improve the old game with extra content, it replaces it with something that might appeal to other people.

I honestly have no idea where you got the notion that it forces itself onto you from.

But, back on topic, I would absolutely buy one; the only reason I don't play RSS is that it's so buggy, and such a pain in the neck. Fix those, and I'll be throwing my money at you!

[marce]

I have never seen a more balanced poll (48:48 atm) - amazing

[klgraham1013]

People still using the game / fun versus realism argument. It's not a sliding scale, people.

Isn't it?

No.

..

[strigon]

No.

..

While true, I must say that a lot of people here seem to think that changing one will simply never affect changing the other.

There are some things that, while being realistic, are not good gameplay and should be excluded; the reverse is also true.

[regex]

While true, I must say that a lot of people here seem to think that changing one will simply never affect changing the other.

"Change" doesn't mean "versus" or the diminishment of the other. That's where the contention comes from. The argument (that one comes at the expense of the other) is stupid because adding realism does not mean removing fun, and vice-versa. It really depends on who is playing. Many people find "hardcore realism" and detail to be much more "fun" than abstraction and concessions.

[strigon]

"Change" doesn't mean "versus" or the diminishment of the other. That's where the contention comes from. The argument (that one comes at the expense of the other) is stupid because adding realism does not mean removing fun, and vice-versa. It really depends on who is playing. Many people find "hardcore realism" and detail to be much more "fun" than abstraction and concessions.

Some people (myself included) do, yes; but what those people are looking for is a simulator, not a game.

I'll concede that not every change to realism will make the game less fun or more fun, but some things that are realistic will make the game much less fun to an awful lot of people.

And I sincerely doubt anyone is saying that any increase in realism comes with a proportional decrease in fun, but KSP is a game. Any change for realism's sake should first be tested to see if it makes the game less fun before it's put in. That's what people are saying when they say "gameplay over realism".

Edited September 22, 2015 by strigon

[regex]

Some people (myself included) do, yes; but what those people are looking for is a simulator, not a game.

That depends on your definition of "game". There are many that one can ascribe to, if the internet is any indication. I, for one, consider computer simulations to be games if I am involved in the simulation because I play them recreationally. Under another definition, KSP would not be a game because it doesn't involve competition between players.