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

[frisch]

I would love a realistic physics space game with the engineering flexibility of Kerbal. I would be happy to pay quite a lot for it ($/hour would still be very small ;-) ).

A good stable realism add-on to kerbal would be great. A new game would be great.

In an ideal world the new game (or add-on) would include somewhat further future technology. The existing realism overhaul is nice but quite accurately demonstrates that with the technology we have, going beyond the moon is really a lot of work and manned missions to the outer planets are just not practical. The near future stuff would be great but only if the game allowed on-rails physics while accelerating. If I have a realistic acceleration time of several months, the game isn't playable even if the ship would work in real life.

[endomen]

The fun about KSP is the Kerbal physics and textures.Clouds, maybe, but realistic textures? That would ruin the game.

[Tyko]

I'd much rather them continue to focus on stability and performance. I love the game as it is and am happy to use mods where I want enhancement. 

[Slam_Jones]

Personally?  No.  If I wanna try realism, I'll install the Realism mods.

For me to buy an actual DLC/expansion/entirely new game, there would have to be a LOT more differences than just physics.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[Wjolcz]

The only new game/DLC/KSP2 I would buy would be Kerbal Aircraft Program. With multiplayer, realistic atmosphere, Earth-sized Kerbin, procedural parts, weapons, realistic missions and Kerbals themselves, of course. I like these little green men and women.

Kerbal Space Program should never have weapons though.

[wumpus]

On 9/22/2015 at 9:29 AM, Kobymaru said:

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.

A more interesting example comes between "realism" and "difficulty".  Or "realism"=="micromanagement".  Some of this stuff (read docking) gets much harder with increased realism (well, size.  But also remember that it takes 3 days to dock with the ISS.  Docking speeds are *slow* in real life).  Then there are issues with the fact that launches simply take longer while doing almost exactly the same mission.

I'm guessing that the "realism"=="micromanagement" faction will cause the most forum angst.  Mission control is full of seats: since NASA does all this (in real time) there really isn't any reason for *you* not to do it.  To be honest, I could see something like this as a "KSP Raid" where a guild of KSP players sit down and literally replace *every* single NASA function in a painfully accurate simulation.  I just have no idea how much such DLC would cost (presumably with a fairly low volume of subscribers) nor can I see Squad wanting to do it (sublicensed DLC anyone?).

The real reason that game designers are forced to choose between "real" and "fun" is real: reality exists in a single way, it may or may not be fun.  Non-real systems exist in many ways: many won't be fun, but some typically are.  It is a strange situation where the most fun one happens to be the single realistic simulation.  Here are some examples:

Spaceplanes are popular in KSP.  Presumably, you would not see so many topics on spacesplanes in these fora if they were not fun.  Unfortunately spaceplanes are completely unrealistic: all existing spaceplanes are suborbital*.  Making an orbital spaceplane is essentially impossible and only works in KSC due to making orbital speed something like mach 5.  Realism overhaul kills the idea of spaceplanes.

Rescue missions are popular in KSP.  Probably the most fun mission is to go out and rescue a downed comrade.  In reality, such an error almost always results in total loss of crew (check arstechnica's excellent writeup of NASA's analysis of a potential Columbia rescue).  A realistic KSP won't have rescue missions at all.

Politics: NASA missions take years to plan, but Congress only appropriates funding for a single year at a time (mostly due to constitutional reasons).  So expect to justify your funding every year, and accept mission creep multiple times between accepting contracts and finally lifting off.  I suspect that this will never become part of RO/RSS because it would be so unfun.

There should be plenty of fun in a realistic KSP, but don't simply assume that by adding realism you don't alter the fun.  While it certainly isn't a single axis (fun on one side and realism on the other), the two axis aren't completely orthogonal.

PS.  This is one of the few DLC ideas that I would enjoy buying.  I suspect I would buy others just to keep KSP production going, but that would involve different reasons.  This just seems such a complete split with the current direction of KSP (call it the HarvestR direction) that I would understand Squad wanting a separate money stream from it.

PPS.  Does anybody know how KerbalEdu works?  Could that be available as DLC (and would anybody want it?).

Edited June 13, 2016 by wumpus

[Tyko]

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

 

PPS.  Does anybody know how KerbalEdu works?  Could that be available as DLC (and would anybody want it?).

Now...that's an interesting idea..I'd consider purchasing a KerbalEdu DLC

[metl]

I had to vote no. Not because I am against DLC. I would pay for DLC for this game for sure if the content was worth it. My no is to the specific question of if I want a realistic dlc. Personally, I do not "want" one. If one was released, I would certainly try it depending on how complex it was. RSS/RO is a bit too much for me. Admittedly though, I hate the stretched graphics that look terrible because of it and since I know very little about real rocketry, the learning curve is just too steep. If those issues were address in an official DLC, then I would probably buy it.

[Ultimate Steve]

DLC? Yes. I bought the game before April that one year. I am entitled to all DLC's for free. (If you bought the game before a certain date, you got all future DLC for free)

[steeeal]

I would buy a part pack with real rockets 

[KOCOUR]

If it would add real scale everything, replaces the SOI thingy with nbody thingy, and replace those stupid looking kerbals with something resembling humans. I WOULD DEFINITELY BUY IT!

 

[JBrown247]

On 9/21/2015 at 10:46 PM, regex said:

Higgs said:

Yes DLC paid or not is in theory optional but almost kinda tries to force itself

How? Don't buy the DLC. I never bought the Skyrim or FONV DLCs, I don't feel like I'm missing out.

You are missing a lot by not buying FONV's and Skyrim's DLCs. 

[Curveball Anders]

I wouldn't pay a penny for either a new game nor a DLC adding more realism to KSP.

The current level of real vs fun is on the mark for me.

There are most likely other things I'd be willing to pay for in KSP (even if I haven't seen them yet).

But if I want realism I load up one of my flight sims.

[Aluminator]

I would like to see an all new game that has realistic graphics, with real astronauts and real existing planets with all their moons, real looking parts to build rockets, sattelites, probes and landers. And build on CRYENGINE. That would be sooooo COOL.

But a DLC based on just looking a bit more realistic like RO/RSS and make it more stable for x64, would be cool. I think I would pay some bucks for it.

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Aluminator

[Hrv123]

Yes, ksp is worth every cent, endless fun (and explosions) in RO/RSS.

[Guest]

Mods

[pandaman]

11 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

Mods

Some of which can, and do, cause problems.

As for the original question...  Yes I would definitely consider it, and if I felt it offered sufficient quality and value (to me) for the price then I'd almost certainly buy it.

[panzer1b]

On 6/13/2016 at 5:08 PM, Veeltch said:

Kerbal Space Program should never have weapons though.

But it already has stock weapons included.  Its been done since not long after KSP became even semi-popular, stock kinetic impactors (a engine strapped onto a fuel tank and preferably a ibeam or some structural part for teh warhead) have been around since the days of macey dean's series (they existed before but im pretty sure macey was the first to really popularize the concept).  If that fails, you can always resort to ramming something ...

 

 

Anyways, a DLC specifically for realism...  I would have to say no since i never liked the realism mods too much.  I gave them a solid try, and while i enjoyed the initial challenge of actually doing anything (lets face it, its not easy to make something get into orbit irl let alone go to mars or any other planet), the mods just made exploration not all that much fun, and frankly, i enjoy actually going to other planets (and having massed battles with capital ships, starfighters, tanks, ect) much more then having to meticulously engineer every single lifter stage (and getting a puny 60t corvette, let alone a 200t carrier thats as big as the VAB into orbit in RSS is IMPOSSIBLE). 

I actually think that teh stock game is in a perfect state as it is, interplanetary travel is more then possible, but it still takes enough engineering and everything to pull it off.  With realism mods there is way more time and effort spent just designing vessels, and way less time spent actually exploring the universe (and battles).  Its probably just me, but i actually see KSP as a sci-fi game that has technology between WW2 and the cold war.  Stock combat is pretty much WW2 kinetic impactors or primitive guided missiles, engines are more or less cold war tech minus ion and a few others, and well, you are in a small scale solar system where reaching anywhere can be done with said primitive tech.  Absolutely best game ive ever played since i can have my battles, explore the planets (by deploying tanks and fighting over em), and well i can design every single craft from ground up (one thing ive always loved in games is making your own crafts and not being given a choice from x number of ships/whatnot)...

[nosirrbro]

As long as I still get Kerbals and Kerbin (upscaled, I want it mainly so I can keep my KSP lore), totally.

[StarfishLeader]

would i buy a RSS/RO/RP-0 game? HELL YEAH!

KSP type building and controls

Better optimization

Better art

Historical career options

 

I will "do stuff" if someone ever announces that game!

[Azimech]

I would pay for a DLC with proper materials, even better thermodynamics, joints and colliders not depending on part mass but real world values, material wear and fatigue due to friction and heat, fluid dynamics etc.

[Sandworm]

Not from this developer.  Not from Squad.

 

Any proper attempt at realism requires extensive planning.  It means "baking in" certain principals long before they are ever used or contemplated.  It means a culture of going to books to look up information prior to incorporating it into a game.  KSP shows a lack of planning.  There is evidence of ad hoc decision making in many areas (batteries, heat, part mass etc).  Squad has also shown a propensity for not revisiting decisions, a necessary step with simulators.  This is not a company culture that lends itself to the creation of oldschool aka "manual" simulators (see the Janes flight simulators).  And that term is apt.  Any realistic simulator, especially one open to modding, requires extensive documentation.  It requires manuals.

 

I'll trust Squad to make a simulator when they issue a manual explaining exactly how KSPs various heat systems function.  Such documentation is not a trivial task, but I fear it is beyond their skill set.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Sandworm