PSA: Aerospike is the new best 1.25m engine!

[KerikBalm]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Ah, the old "realism is all or nothing" argument. I don't lend that one much credence, it's entirely possible for a game to be realistic in one or more aspects while unrealistic in others.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying realism is all or nothing... I'm just saying you shouldn't argue that KSP should have a LFO engine that gets 450 Isp, just because in real life you can get that Isp with a chemical rocket.

Using real values for mass, thrust, Isp, etc is fine if you also use real values for celestial bodies diameters and distances....
picking and choosing some real values while using unrealistic values for other things can get you severely nerfed parts, or severely overpowered parts.

If we were all playing with RSS, then a desire for real Isp values would hold merit... but if you want to have real Isp values, while sticking to diameter and distance values of celestial bodies that are 1/10th the "real" values resulting in required dVs that are 1/3rd the "real" values... cry me a river.

Arguing that because the game uses unrealistically small values in some areas (planet/system size/mass), and unrealistically high values in others (part mass), we should have exactly the real values in another area (Isp)... that just seems dumb to me. The Isp value should be chosen to give gameplay that balances the other two unrealistic values. It can be chosen to give easier gameplay, more realistic gameplay (in a relative sense), or somewhere in between. Picking the "real" Isp values because they are "real" makes no sense from a gameplay perspective.. and it doesn't even make sense from a realism perspective because of the changed context.

I fully support the "recent" (1.0) engine Isp nerfs.
It has lead to *more realistic* gameplay overall when playing in this mini-me sized system. Edited November 17, 2015 by KerikBalm