Pilots: uses for them past early career?

[Snark]

Pilots have (for me, at least) an interestingly difficult problem: they have a shelf-life with a rigidly-defined (and early) expiration date.

Up until the moment I unlock SAS-capable probe cores, pilots are utterly indispensable and I use them to the exclusion of everything else-- it's just too painful to try to control a ship that doesn't have SAS capability. It's not that engineers and scientists have no use, it's just that I have to have a pilot, and in the early pre-probe part of career, it's awkward to build multi-kerbal craft (the Mk1 pod really doesn't stack well).

However, the moment that I unlock the OKTO, suddenly pilots are totally obsolete. I have no use for them at all. Yes, it's kind-of-sort-of nice to have the advanced SAS modes available before I have the top-end probe cores unlocked, but that's only a nice-to-have, not a have-to-have; whereas I really need what scientists can do (reset experiments) and engineers (mining). So for the 90% of my career that happens post-OKTO, pilots are just taking up space. It becomes particularly frustrating for me, since I like to populate my program with rescued kerbals, and fully 1/3 of them are useless pilots.

In general, I really like what Squad has done with the various professions, but pilots are in an interesting hole. Engineers and scientists have a use the entire game, but pilots get left out in the cold. I'd love to see some sort of mechanic that makes pilots have some use throughout the game.

One idea that occurs to me: The upcoming patch will add the RemoteTech-like need for probe cores to be able to talk back to KSC via line-of-sight or relays in order to be controllable. It will also make it possible for kerbals in a ship to remote-control probes. What if you make it so that only pilots have remote-control ability, and also that controlling a probe core in your own craft counts as "remote control". Thus, if I send a scientist to the Mun with a probe core on the ship, and then the ship goes around behind the Mun and loses LOS to Kerbin... suddenly it's an uncontrolled probe core, and the scientist has no SAS. That would give a reason to send pilots along: "well, either I can add a pilot to the ship, or else I have to build a relay network of satellites."

Anyway, that's just one idea, I'm curious what other folks have thought about this. Discuss?

[Kuansenhama]

I have the Tourism contract pack involved and most of the flights require that there be a pilot onboard when you fly the tourists to their destination.

[fairytalefox]

It's like real life: nobody pilots rockets, everything is controlled by computers, humans are just a payload

I'd suggest to make automated probe cores to be able to only control ships with so many science parts. If you want more experiments in one trip, you have to have a real pilot. Not very realistic but kinda solves the issue. Should solve.

[Snark]

It's like real life: nobody pilots rockets, everything is controlled by computers, humans are just a payload

Well, yes, that had occurred to me. But if we were going to be totally realistic about that, we'd just make MechJeb part of the stock game and players would be hands-off for practically all ship-control tasks. It's a game, fun needs to trump realism. (No, I'm not looking to start a flame war over MechJeb and similar automation. I choose not to use it because it would take away everything about the game that I, personally, enjoy. I recognize that other people like different challenges, and if they like MechJeb then more power to them.)

This does pose an interesting problem with "how do you keep pilots relevant" when, realistically, they're not. That's why I flagged this thread as "discussion" rather than a particular suggestion-- I don't know the answer. I do have one suggestion, which I posted above, but not sure if that really fits the bill and would love to hear what other folks have thought about.

I'd suggest to make automated probe cores to be able to only control ships with so many science parts. If you want more experiments in one trip, you have to have a real pilot. Not very realistic but kinda solves the issue. Should solve.

But how would that help with the problem of having a pilot? It doesn't give me a reason for a pilot, I could just as easily send an engineer or a scientist. I already have plenty of good reasons for sending crewed ships, I don't think there's a particular game need to add an arbitrary limitation like that. The only way that would help with the "piloting profession is obsolete" problem would be if you arbitrarily said that you have to have a pilot (engineer or scientist wouldn't do) to fulfill the criterion, and then it would really be confusing and hard to understand for the player. Certainly it would seem weird to say "You have to have a pilot if you want lots of science experiments. No, not a scientist. A pilot."

The issue here is: what can we give pilots (as opposed to other professions) to do, once automated probe cores are available.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Snark

[passinglurker]

If I were to give a perk to pilots it would be better atmospheric engine isp. really it would have been better isp period but realism users didn't like the idea at all hopefully they can be compelled into thinking atmospheric flight is fuzzy enough to let this slide... >.>

It's like real life: nobody pilots rockets, everything is controlled by computers, humans are just a payload

Tell that to apollo astronauts hand flying docking maneuvers is how they were able to get to the moon so fast.

Also automation is ideal for routine maneuvers but hand flying is ideal for less predictable situations but in order to be good at hand flying you need to be flying by hand all the time. You even see this is ksp comparing pilot style players to ones that use mechjeb or kOS.

[Snark]

If I were to give a perk to pilots it would be better atmospheric engine isp. really it would have been better isp period but realism users didn't like the idea at all hopefully they can be compelled into thinking atmospheric flight is fuzzy enough to let this slide... >.>

I seem to recall that "improved ship performance" was one of the ideas that Squad played around with when considering adding the professions, and there was a resounding "NO!" from the KSP community. Certainly I'd be very strongly against that myself-- it would alter the dynamics of the game and affect engineering. Quite aside from the fact that I would really dislike that from a gameplay perspective, it just "feels wrong" to me-- the engine can do what it can do, it's not as though pilot skill changes the physical characteristics of the engine.

In any case, given that Squad already considered and rejected that idea, I'd say it's a non-starter. I really like what they did with SAS... the only problem is that it's a skill that becomes completely obsolete with the advent of probe cores, so there needs to be something else.

Tell that to apollo astronauts hand flying docking maneuvers is how they were able to get to the moon so fast.

Well, yes, but computers were seriously primitive then. My phone probably has more computing horsepower than all of NASA did in 1969. It's a miracle they were able to get any automation at all on the Apollo craft, given the weight limits and the state of computers at the time.

But in any case, this is getting off topic-- would really like to hear more ideas of how to keep pilots relevant in the game.

[Racescort666]

The way to keep pilots relevant later in the game is to give them some skill/feature that the probes don't have, I don't really know what that might be though.

I know that MechJeb does this and it's probably part of why people consider MechJeb to be the "easy button" but maneuver node execution would be useful. Probes might get this with the future requirement of antennae on probes. It's considerably more difficult to play with RemoteTech without the ability to execute nodes while occluded.

[Snark]

The way to keep pilots relevant later in the game is to give them some skill/feature that the probes don't have, I don't really know what that might be though.

I know that MechJeb does this and it's probably part of why people consider MechJeb to be the "easy button" but maneuver node execution would be useful. Probes might get this with the future requirement of antennae on probes. It's considerably more difficult to play with RemoteTech without the ability to execute nodes while occluded.

Yah. Since the problem is "probes make pilots obsolete", then any answer is going to have to be either "make pilots better somehow" or "make probes worse somehow".

Adding a remote-control requirement to probes, as they're doing in 1.1, might help with that-- would help even further if only pilots have the ability to remote-control probes that don't have LOS back to Kerbin.

Adding a lightspeed control lag to probes (as RemoteTech does) would help even more, though I suspect that would be too complex to add for the stock game-- would be too hard for beginning players, would require adding at least a limited autopilot, etc. So that's probably not an option for stock.

[passinglurker]

I seem to recall that "improved ship performance" was one of the ideas that Squad played around with when considering adding the professions, and there was a resounding "NO!" from the KSP community. Certainly I'd be very strongly against that myself-- it would alter the dynamics of the game and affect engineering. Quite aside from the fact that I would really dislike that from a gameplay perspective, it just "feels wrong" to me-- the engine can do what it can do, it's not as though pilot skill changes the physical characteristics of the engine.

In any case, given that Squad already considered and rejected that idea, I'd say it's a non-starter. I really like what they did with SAS... the only problem is that it's a skill that becomes completely obsolete with the advent of probe cores, so there needs to be something else.

Think about it like this a skilled ksp user can get a more efficient accent if he flies right. A less skilled user can abstractly get the same result using a skilled pilot kerbal its not saying having a lvl5 pilot changes the engineering of the engine but is more like saying that the rocket traveled a more efficient accent that what you saw.

The way to keep pilots relevant later in the game is to give them some skill/feature that the probes don't have, I don't really know what that might be though.

I know that MechJeb does this and it's probably part of why people consider MechJeb to be the "easy button" but maneuver node execution would be useful. Probes might get this with the future requirement of antennae on probes. It's considerably more difficult to play with RemoteTech without the ability to execute nodes while occluded.

this would also be a good perk to give pilots though then many would argue probes should be able to do the same hopefully they will be ignored. to expand on the idea further consider this

lvl1. toggleable auto stage (simple quality of life convenience that lets you focus more on your navball than your fuel levels)

lvl2. executable auto throttle (at this level you still have to aim for the node yourself but the kerbal can lever the throttle stick at the right time for your upcoming node, and combined with the lvl5 target maneuver node you eventually get auto node execution)

lvl3. executable auto kill horizontal velocity (hit the button for the kerbal to automatically kill your horizontal velocity at that moment. Its an important step for landings and at a level where a kerbal would have done a landing or two to earn this skill)

lvl4. executable auto kill vertical velocity (hit the button for the kerbal to automatically kill your vertical velocity on command. also an important step for landings and at a level where a kerbal would have done even more landings to earn this skill)

lvl5. executable auto kill relative velocity with target (great for rendezvous and dockings and comes when you get the auto point at target function making a nice capstone.)

[Snark]

Think about it like this a skilled ksp user can get a more efficient accent if he flies right. A less skilled user can abstractly get the same result using a skilled pilot kerbal its not saying having a lvl5 pilot changes the engineering of the engine but is more like saying that the rocket traveled a more efficient accent that what you saw.

Except that the reason that a skilled KSP player can get a more efficient ascent by flying right is because they're flying right.Boosting the Isp of an engine, or making other engineering-equivalent changes, is not that. Sure, one could "pretend that's what it was" as you suggest... but that's then divorcing KSP from the "what you see is what you get" physics and adding an abstraction. It would allow ships to get to orbit that otherwise simply couldn't do it even with a perfect ascent. It really grates on me, would be a cure worse than the disease as far as I'm concerned.

I realize that opinions vary on this-- I'm not dissing your viewpoint (it's perfectly valid), just saying that I don't happen to share it. My impression, from the furor that erupted in the KSP community when Squad publicly mused about this sort of thing, is that lots of other players have similar views. I'd really like to see some ideas that could actually happen-- pilot skill boosting ship engineering looks like it just isn't going to happen (thankfully, from my perspective) based on past experience.

this would also be a good perk to give pilots though then many would argue probes should be able to do the same hopefully they will be ignored. to expand on the idea further consider this

lvl1. toggleable auto stage (simple quality of life convenience that lets you focus more on your navball than your fuel levels)

lvl2. executable auto throttle (at this level you still have to aim for the node yourself but the kerbal can lever the throttle stick at the right time for your upcoming node, and combined with the lvl5 target maneuver node you eventually get auto node execution)

lvl3. executable auto kill horizontal velocity (hit the button for the kerbal to automatically kill your horizontal velocity at that moment. Its an important step for landings and at a level where a kerbal would have done a landing or two to earn this skill)

lvl4. executable auto kill vertical velocity (hit the button for the kerbal to automatically kill your vertical velocity on command. also an important step for landings and at a level where a kerbal would have done even more landings to earn this skill)

lvl5. executable auto kill relative velocity with target (great for rendezvous and dockings and comes when you get the auto point at target function making a nice capstone.)

A couple of issues there.

The first is that those "conveniences" directly fly against what lots of players like. I enjoy setting off my stages, and landing my own probes. It's why I play KSP, that's the fun part. It's why I'll never run MechJeb-- it would be a game-ruiner for me. I realize that different players like different things, and what one player considers fun another just thinks of as a chore. But precisely because of such variations, anything that goes into the stock game should be something that pretty much everyone can get behind. The various "hold direction" options they currently have are pretty good, I'd be wary of going farther down that path in the stock game. Folks who want heavy-duty automation can run MechJeb.

Auto-kill horizontal and vertical velocity aren't needed, anyway-- they're easy to do with the current hold-surface-retrograde button, just set up a suicide burn and it's pretty easy. Adding it would just complicate the UI for no reason.

Auto-execute maneuver node might be a useful convenience for high-level pilots, I suppose, and isn't much of a step beyond "hold maneuver prograde".

However, the real reason why I think that those ideas don't really solve the "pilot problem" is that they're just conveniences. None of them make pilots indispensable.

Scientists? For certain missions, they're a must-have: they're the only ones that can reset goo and materials-bay experiments. They can man science labs. For the mid-game where you need all the science you can get, and haven't yet unlocked the top-end science instruments, they let you get far more science done-- you can make a Mun lander go biome hopping and pick up multiple sets of results in a single round trip to the Mun.

Engineers? Gotta have them for mining. If you're flying a repeat Duna lander, gotta have them to repack the parachutes.

Pilots? ...Not so much of a much. Sure, it might be handy to have some convenience functions on them. Heck, they have convenience functions now when a high-level pilot has SAS skills that low-end probe cores don't, like "hold target". But it's only a convenience. "Have any SAS at all" is an absolute must-have, it's just torture to fly a craft that doesn't have that: it's what even a level-0 pilot can do, and why they're indispensable until the first core with SAS is unlocked. But once you have that basic ability, being able to auto-hold a particular attitude is just a minor convenience, not a must-have. Craft are easy to steer. If I'm sending a Mun lander that has to have a scientist in it, I'd rather put an OKTO on it and do manual piloting than try to add another ton of mass for an extra command pod to hold a pilot just so I can have "hold retrograde" or whatever.

Would love to see something that pilots can do that you "gotta have" that isn't just a trivial convenience-- without being a game-breaker for a substantial number of players.

[Shark4558]

I think the only use of pilots is to handle rockets that have no remote control.

which applies to the emergency rockets in my Kerbin space station ...

a use that could be given to the pilots would be,having them in space, so when a important load arrives,let the pilots handle it,just in case something happens...

[Nothalogh]

Pilots have (for me, at least) an interestingly difficult problem: they have a shelf-life with a rigidly-defined (and early) expiration date.

Up until the moment I unlock SAS-capable probe cores, pilots are utterly indispensable and I use them to the exclusion of everything else-- it's just too painful to try to control a ship that doesn't have SAS capability. It's not that engineers and scientists have no use, it's just that I have to have a pilot, and in the early pre-probe part of career, it's awkward to build multi-kerbal craft (the Mk1 pod really doesn't stack well).

However, the moment that I unlock the OKTO, suddenly pilots are totally obsolete. I have no use for them at all. Yes, it's kind-of-sort-of nice to have the advanced SAS modes available before I have the top-end probe cores unlocked, but that's only a nice-to-have, not a have-to-have; whereas I really need what scientists can do (reset experiments) and engineers (mining). So for the 90% of my career that happens post-OKTO, pilots are just taking up space. It becomes particularly frustrating for me, since I like to populate my program with rescued kerbals, and fully 1/3 of them are useless pilots.

In general, I really like what Squad has done with the various professions, but pilots are in an interesting hole. Engineers and scientists have a use the entire game, but pilots get left out in the cold. I'd love to see some sort of mechanic that makes pilots have some use throughout the game.

One idea that occurs to me: The upcoming patch will add the RemoteTech-like need for probe cores to be able to talk back to KSC via line-of-sight or relays in order to be controllable. It will also make it possible for kerbals in a ship to remote-control probes. What if you make it so that only pilots have remote-control ability, and also that controlling a probe core in your own craft counts as "remote control". Thus, if I send a scientist to the Mun with a probe core on the ship, and then the ship goes around behind the Mun and loses LOS to Kerbin... suddenly it's an uncontrolled probe core, and the scientist has no SAS. That would give a reason to send pilots along: "well, either I can add a pilot to the ship, or else I have to build a relay network of satellites."

Anyway, that's just one idea, I'm curious what other folks have thought about this. Discuss?

Yes, the whole system is bassackwards.

The way I see it is this:

Manned missions should offer a significant rep bonus over unmanned

Pilots should increase the effectiveness of the scientists and engineers, as they can then focus on their particular jobs rather than worry about that blinking warning light next to the navball

[Sanic]

Engineers are pretty much the exact opposite. Almost useless until ISRU is unlocked.

[fairytalefox]

Guys! I think I have a solution!

An automated probe core shouldn't be able to control a vessel with a kerbal (or maybe a crew-capable part instead, all that hitchhiking containers and whatnow) on board. You want scientists and/or engineers, you need a pilot, too. Robot pilots are for fully robotized kerballess ships only.

What do you think?

[passinglurker]

Guys! I think I have a solution!

An automated probe core shouldn't be able to control a vessel with a kerbal (or maybe a crew-capable part instead, all that hitchhiking containers and whatnow) on board. You want scientists and/or engineers, you need a pilot, too. Robot pilots are for fully robotized kerballess ships only.

What do you think?

It's similar to real life and why we don't have robo airliners but then you'd have to implement a convoluted set of checks to prevent you from EVAing, transferring/undocking, staging or otherwise ejecting the useless pilot that the game is forcing you to bring. He has to contribute something but in terms of autopilot or twr/dv performance readouts everything he can contribute you could also expect from a probe...

Except engine isp. Hear me out if engineers can influence isru efficiency a pilot can influence engine efficiency. Most of the backlash over the idea came before anyone played with skills and realized how useless pilots are, and squad has suspended realism for the sake of gameplay before (see the fact that fuel pipes work at all, or the fact that we don't suffer mechanical failures) I bet many outside the hardcore realism users would sing a different tune now and if they don't like it they can use probe cores meanwhile pilots influencing isp lets them make up for the extra mass it takes to bring them otherwise rebalancing pod vs. probe core masses so that it's better to use a 2 person pod over a 1 person pod/core combo is gonna be very tricky. It may not be realistic but it makes them contribute to the mission not just sets up an arbitrary road block like needing a pilot in radio range for probes or on the ship at all for crew.

[cfds]

passinglurker, the reasons why changing the ISP based on pilot level is stupid has been done to death in the forum, so please stop selling it as a solution.

[passinglurker]

passinglurker, the reasons why changing the ISP based on pilot level is stupid has been done to death in the forum, so please stop selling it as a solution.

Not really it died a quick death as soon as squad mused it and hasn't been picked up since despite changes in circumstances, and again engineers can influence one parts efficiency then there is a precedent for pilots to do another. Plus you fail to understand despite any unrealistic holes in logic that you may perceive due to your knee jerk reactions this is the only real solution to the problem everything else doesn't make a pilot more useful than a probe it makes them a road block you must contend with which in terms of game play is even stupider that letting you irk out an extra single digits worth of isp cause jeb knows what he is doing.

At the very least if you want me to stop you'd need make a more compelling case backed up with hard numbers outlining its implications on the balance not just say "X is stupid"

[John FX]

I seem to recall that "improved ship performance" was one of the ideas that Squad played around with when considering adding the professions, and there was a resounding "NO!" from the KSP community. Certainly I'd be very strongly against that myself-- it would alter the dynamics of the game and affect engineering. Quite aside from the fact that I would really dislike that from a gameplay perspective, it just "feels wrong" to me-- the engine can do what it can do, it's not as though pilot skill changes the physical characteristics of the engine.

In any case, given that Squad already considered and rejected that idea, I'd say it's a non-starter. I really like what they did with SAS... the only problem is that it's a skill that becomes completely obsolete with the advent of probe cores, so there needs to be something else.

Well, yes, but computers were seriously primitive then. My phone probably has more computing horsepower than all of NASA did in 1969. It's a miracle they were able to get any automation at all on the Apollo craft, given the weight limits and the state of computers at the time.

But in any case, this is getting off topic-- would really like to hear more ideas of how to keep pilots relevant in the game.

Investigating the construction of the flight computer on the Apollo ship, apparently most of the launch itself was simply done using timers. There was no calculation done to go 'I am at this height and at this speed and the fuel is gone so I will Stage', all of the stages were pre calculated on the ground that stage 1 would last this amount of time and so therefore after 4 and a half minutes perform action A, after 5 minutes perform action B and so forth.

If any deviation from the preprogrammed sequence of events was needed then a human being had to regain control of the craft and do things by hand.

Maybe this could be the way the pilots are still useful when we have cores controlling the craft, The Cores have to be programmed on the ground for a precise sequence of events?

Maybe the RCS could be only controlled by pilots until you have the most advanced core?

[Capt Snuggler]

Guys! I think I have a solution!

An automated probe core shouldn't be able to control a vessel with a kerbal (or maybe a crew-capable part instead, all that hitchhiking containers and whatnow) on board. You want scientists and/or engineers, you need a pilot, too. Robot pilots are for fully robotized kerballess ships only.

What do you think?

that just seems like another arbitrary restriction with no logical explanation. what if a kerbal took a nap? what if a crewed ship docks with a probe controlled ship? I'm sorry, I don't that's a good solution.

It's similar to real life and why we don't have robo airliners but then you'd have to implement a convoluted set of checks to prevent you from EVAing, transferring/undocking, staging or otherwise ejecting the useless pilot that the game is forcing you to bring. He has to contribute something but in terms of autopilot or twr/dv performance readouts everything he can contribute you could also expect from a probe...

Except engine isp. Hear me out if engineers can influence isru efficiency a pilot can influence engine efficiency. Most of the backlash over the idea came before anyone played with skills and realized how useless pilots are, and squad has suspended realism for the sake of gameplay before (see the fact that fuel pipes work at all, or the fact that we don't suffer mechanical failures) I bet many outside the hardcore realism users would sing a different tune now and if they don't like it they can use probe cores meanwhile pilots influencing isp lets them make up for the extra mass it takes to bring them otherwise rebalancing pod vs. probe core masses so that it's better to use a 2 person pod over a 1 person pod/core combo is gonna be very tricky. It may not be realistic but it makes them contribute to the mission not just sets up an arbitrary road block like needing a pilot in radio range for probes or on the ship at all for crew.

Please no. A Kerbal in a cockpit cannot "fine tune" a rocket engine mid flight (or any other time). The reason people don't like it is, it doesn't make any sense. its magic and goes against the core fundamentals of the game.

your trying to fix a bad class system by making it even more non nonsensical.

If it were my choice the current crew class system would be ripped out of the game entirely and replaced with a skill point system, as well as many other details* like damage states for more parts that just wheels and a "tools" resource that is depleted when repairing.

all kerbals would gain points in all skills and this would govern their ability in various tasks and overall job.

• Pilot Skill would govern the kerbals ability to stay conscious high G force. too many Gs for too long and the little guy passes out and you loose control. also governs the kerbals ability to perform science and engineering tasks.
  
• Engineering Skill would govern the ability to repair certain parts, how long it takes and how many "tools*" are used to do the repair.
  
• Science Skill governs how much science is gained when doing an experiment or report and what "field experiments" can be performed.
  

the Kerbals skills would be increase by performing tasks. do allot of repairs get good a repairing. do allot of science produce more meaningful results. do allot of flying get better at handling the conditions of flying.

if Life support is ever added these skills could feed in to that system as well.

pilot skill would still loose relevance in the late game but that would reflect the astronauts of today vs the astronauts of the 60s. the right stuff then is not the same as the right stuff now.

paint me with the extreme realism bush if you must. personally I think it just makes sense.

Maybe this could be the way the pilots are still useful when we have cores controlling the craft, The Cores have to be programmed on the ground for a precise sequence of events?

Maybe the RCS could be only controlled by pilots until you have the most advanced core?

this I like.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[passinglurker]

When did I say pilots tune engines in fact from here on out I discredit all existing expansions, offer no replacements, and encourage the pilots contribution to effiency to be hidden if people's brains will really explode trying to fathom how it could be possible.

Also let us not make presumptuous assumptions about the fundamentals of this GAME much if it runs off magic magic is completely acceptable when it helps make an enjoyable experience that's why you can build rockets instantly and don't suffer from orbital decay.

A total overhaul of the skill system may be a viable solution, but the more drastic the change the less likely it is to happen so pilot efficiency remains the best solution to finding a meaningful contribution for pilots within the confines of the existing system.

[fairytalefox]

No convoluted checks. All the checks, except one, are already here, implemented and working. In order for a ship to be controllable, it should have a functional control part. A pod with no pilot in it isn't functional. It's how the game works right now. We need one more check: if there's a part marked as 'habitable', don't consider control parts marked as 'automated' functional. It's simple.

Regarding this limitation being arbitrary. Yes, it kinda is. I never called my idea flawless. But it isn't THAT arbitrary - human passengers require human pilots, it's sort of understandable.

Regarding Isp changes and stuff. As people already mentioned, it's a big no-no since that ....storm when Squad was going to actually implement something like it. The main argument was 'it's magic; the next step would be kerbal witches piloting interplanetary brooms'.

[cfds]

When did I say pilots tune engines in fact from here on out I discredit all existing expansions, offer no replacements, and encourage the pilots contribution to effiency to be hidden if people's brains will really explode trying to fathom how it could be possible.

Because hiding the magically changed physical parameters is so far better than just having the magical changes...

Also let us not make presumptuous assumptions about the fundamentals of this GAME much if it runs off magic magic is completely acceptable when it helps make an enjoyable experience that's why you can build rockets instantly and don't suffer from orbital decay.

The fundamentals are pretty clear: Orbits are determined by the gravity of the centre body of the current SoI. In this case, orbits are stable when they are outside the atmosphere. That atmospheric drag can only be applied to the active vessel is a limitation of the game engine an really not that a great problem since you can still deorbit stuff by just hopping aboard. The fact that time does not play any role in the stock game is a pity, but that's what mods are for.

A total overhaul of the skill system may be a viable solution, but the more drastic the change the less likely it is to happen so pilot efficiency remains the best solution to finding a meaningful contribution for pilots within the confines of the existing system.

Just not using pilots at all is a far better solution than "Jeb sitting in the cockpit changes the laws of physics" (as Kuzzter taught us, only engineers have this ability). And just requiring a pilot on board for some contracts is a viable and not drastic solution.

[Red Iron Crown]

The elephant in the room: Pilots aren't really important to real life space flight. They have been steadily replaced by automated systems (where they were even required at all), especially in non-NASA programs.

I think I like the OP's suggestion best so far, make pilots required to control things remotely. Though I guess with no lightspeed lag we could just park a pilot at KSC or in LKO and run everything from there.

[Gilph]

To get back on track a bit...

Making the probes OP is really the cause of the problem, to me. I have not seen the details of the upcoming 1.0.5 changes, so it may be best to see how that actually gets implemented.

I think the best way is to try to get some realism in the probe inventory, at the risk of breaking all of the unmanned rockets existing today. I care much less about line of sight communication as a restriction, and more about distance. If you restrict starting a maneuver based on how far away you are, it makes a live pilot more capable, as he is controlling in real time. I'm sure there needs to be added capability to make this work,but I like the idea.

[sal_vager]

You have not seen this yet Gliph?