Vessel statistics & information in VAB and flight scenes

[*Aqua*]

Hello everybody!

In the past updates a simple app in the VAB was introduced which displays basic vessel information like size and weight. But that isn't enough to eyeball if a rocket can fly to Jool and back.

A player like me needs additional information like (remaining) burn time, delta V, TWR, etc. to quickly understand what a rocket is capable of. And I need access to this information in the VAB and during flight. Do you really expect us to get some paper and calculate the numbers by ourselves or always resort to KER, MechJeb & similiar mods?

Information like the ones I mentioned are essential for simulation games. Look at car racing games, nearly all of them provide statistics of how fast they accelerate, gear ratios, etc. for the player. And even games like Distant Universe show them where these kind of numbers aren't as important as in KSP.

For example the current gameplay for a beginner and intermediate player looks like this:

1. Build a rocket.

2. Fly.

3. Rocket doesn't reach orbit.

4. Revert to hangar and add more tanks/engines/boosters.

5. Go to 2.

This process repeats over and over. After several hours you finally reached orbit. Now you repeat all that again until you build a rocket which can fly to Jool. Arriving a Jool you run out of gas and - you guessed right - revert to the hangar again to modify your creation so you can get back to Kerbin.

In summary: 5+ hours of building and trying for a 1 hour mission.

I understand that building is a big part in this game but it's not done right. How do you expect children and other non-space-nerds to understand the rocket equation and orbital mechanics if you don't provide some basic numbers?

Don't you think it's ridiculous to tell us the needed delta V and burn time for a maneuver node when there's no display how much delta V and burn time are in the tanks?

Edited November 12, 2015 by *Aqua*
typo

[Snark]

The counter-argument is that you can do a lot with seat-of-the-pants engineering. Tell me to put a 30-ton payload in Kerbin orbit, and I'll slap together something in about two minutes in the VAB that will do the job handily, and I'll do it without touching a calculator.

I can do that because I've played KSP a lot. And people without a math background can do it, too. I've seen a bright 10-year-old do some pretty impressive things with KSP, and he sure never touched the Tsiolkovsky equation.

The point you're making is a valid one, and it's an argument that's been raging back and forth for as long as KSP has been around. ("We should have a dV display!" "No we shouldn't!" "Yes we should!") Squad's been very deliberate about not putting a dV display in; it's certainly not an oversight. There are a lot of players who wish they'd add it... and also a lot of players (myself included) who hope they won't.

KER for folks who want more of this kind of support.

[Wjolcz]

The counter-argument is that you can do a lot with seat-of-the-pants engineering. Tell me to put a 30-ton payload in Kerbin orbit, and I'll slap together something in about two minutes in the VAB that will do the job handily, and I'll do it without touching a calculator.

I can do that because I've played KSP a lot. And people without a math background can do it, too. I've seen a bright 10-year-old do some pretty impressive things with KSP, and he sure never touched the Tsiolkovsky equation.

The point you're making is a valid one, and it's an argument that's been raging back and forth for as long as KSP has been around. ("We should have a dV display!" "No we shouldn't!" "Yes we should!") Squad's been very deliberate about not putting a dV display in; it's certainly not an oversight. There are a lot of players who wish they'd add it... and also a lot of players (myself included) who hope they won't.

KER for folks who want more of this kind of support.

Playing the game the way it was meant to be played, eh? You won't go beyond Kerbin's SOI anytime soon with that logic. Ok, maybe you will, but you will struggle a lot first.

KER should be stock. It helps building the more complex and efficient designs without wasting time/in-game money/fuel, or all of that at once. I'm not touching 1.0.5 'til KER gets updated.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Veeltch

[WinkAllKerb'']

not really a matter related to computer (discovery, learning curve,trial, error, wow this is amazing, how can i do better thing and learn new stuff, search, wooaaaaaaahh tons of mods) may be more a console & mods availability concern things may be ...

Edited November 12, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[*Aqua*]

@Snark

You can put 30 tons in an orbit because you memorized the needed rocket.

Not everybody does it. Not everybody is as good as you. Just have a look in the forums, a lot of people have problems guesstimating how far they can go with a rocket.

Formulas with quadratic calculation (rocket equation) are non-intuitive. Humans have a lot of problems with them and unconsciously apply a linear interpolation which - of course - fails. And they will fall in this trap again and again.

For people who don't want this information display they should be able to disable it in the difficulty settings. Then everybody is happy.

Also I don't think we need all the information KER provides, just the essential ones (at least current TWR, remaining delta V, remaining burn time).

[Snark]

Playing the game the way it was meant to be played, eh? You won't go beyond Kerbin's SOI anytime soon with that logic. Ok, maybe you will, but you will struggle a lot first.

Substitute "have tons of fun discovering what works and what doesn't, and feeling a sense of pride and accomplishment on each launch" for "struggle," and I agree with you there.

KER should be stock.

There are lots of people who agree with you. There are also lots of people who are strenuously opposed. I don't think either side is going to convince the other. Squad appears to have made its decision and has deliberately not added it to the game; I don't anticipate that they're likely to change that decision, unless the balance of player opinion tips decisively towards it.

It helps building the more complex and efficient designs without wasting time/in-game money/fuel, or all of that at once.

Substitute "learning how rockets work" for "wasting time/in-game money/fuel", and I agree with you.

You can put 30 tons in an orbit because you memorized the needed rocket.

That's true. But I'd phrase it as "learned from experience" rather than "memorized." The fact is, KSP is at heart a trial-and-error game. Much of the fun comes from failing, and figuring out what went wrong, and getting better the next time. I would have been bitterly disappointed if my first attempt at orbit succeeded.

If you play the game a little while, and you have a basic idea of how things work without any misconceptions getting in the way, it doesn't take much trial-and-error (and fun!) to learn about how much rocket you need to put something of a given size into orbit.

The caveat I've bolded above is the crux of the matter, of course, and is exactly what you've put your finger on. More on that below.

Not everybody does it. Not everybody is as good as you. Just have a look in the forums, a lot of people have problems guesstimating how far they can go with a rocket.

Formulas with quadratic calculation (rocket equation) are non-intuitive. Humans have a lot of problems with them and unconsciously apply a linear interpolation which - of course - fails. And they will fall in this trap again and again.

And here you've perfectly captured the heart of the matter, thank you for that.

I think the real issue is not that trial-and-error is bad. I played KSP with some trial-and-error and had boatloads of fun as each successive launch got better and I felt a sense of accomplishment. Someone else can play KSP with trial-and-error and get quickly frustrated and disappointed as nothing works and they try everything they can think of and nothing gets better and they do it again and again and again and it's about as much fun as banging their head against the wall.

So what's the crucial difference there between experience A (trial and error is fun!) and experience B (trial and error is frustrating!)?

I think it boils down to a case of fundamentally understanding how rockets work. I have a bit of an unfair advantage, because I was a space nerd going into KSP and already had a pretty good idea of what's what.

The people who get frustrated do so because they don't know why it doesn't work. They don't know the underlying principles that the game's enforcing, so they don't zero in on a solution, they're basically just mashing buttons.

There are a few basic concepts that aren't super complicated if you happen to know them, but which will make your life miserable if you don't, and it's not easy to discover them for yourself. Not every one of us is a Tsiolkovsky or an Oberth or a Newton. Little things, like:

• They don't know the basics of aerodynamic stability, so their rockets keep flipping out. (How many of those posts have we seen in the gameplay-questions tutorial?)
  
• They don't know that a multi-stage rocket needs to have exponentially decreasing size with each successive stage. So they can't figure out why their rockets all seem to poop out just short of orbit, and blindly try tacking on additional fuel tanks or engines in various places.
  
• They don't know the importance of not going too fast when you're still in thick atmosphere. So they put too much TWR on their ships and waste half their fuel before they're even above 10 km.
  
• They don't know about Oberth effect or why suicide burns are a good idea, so their landing approach to the Mun is hopelessly inefficient.
  
• ...and on, and on.
  

I totally agree that the game is unfriendly to people who don't get that. I think there needs to be some game feature to help with that. But I don't think that making KER stock is the way.

I think the problem for such people isn't lack of numbers, it's lack of concepts. I think a fix for the problem needs to be concept-based rather than numbers-based.

Right now, they're basically just doing random button-mashing because they don't understand why rockets do or don't work. All that giving them KER will accomplish is to move the random button-mashing into the VAB instead of having to go through the agony of repeated mysterious flight failures. It won't get rid of the random button-mashing, it'll just make it faster and more efficient, which I don't think is really the way to solve the problem long-term.

What I'm really hopeful about is the upcoming addition of KSPedia to the game in 1.1. There's a feature that has the potential to bring the sort of useful concepts to people that will immensely help them. Picture a "What you need to know about building rockets" page with links to other topics. One topic would be "Building a multi-stage rocket" with a simple cartoon illustration of "This is good" (each stage half the size of the one below it) next to "This is bad" (each stage same size as the one below it). A few pictures, then words down below for people who want to get into it.

Another page would be "Aero stability and you." Again, a cartoon of what "good" looks like, accompanied by a few cartoons of the various flavors of "bad" and how you might correct them.

I'm not a UI designer, what I just described is just an example off the top of my head and may not necessarily be the best way to accomplish the goal. The point is, I think that what we need is a concept-focused rather than a numbers-focused solution.

For people who don't want this information display they should be able to disable it in the difficulty settings. Then everybody is happy.

Well, one could argue that "it shouldn't be stock, and for people who want this information display they can install KER. Then everybody is happy."

I hasten to add that I'm not dissing your viewpoint here, just that there's a lot of disagreement in the community and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. I think the bar for "should be in the stock game" needs to be when community opinion is pretty close to one-sided.

[klgraham1013]

The fact is, KSP is at heart a trial-and-error game. Much of the fun comes from failing, and figuring out what went wrong, and getting better the next time. I would have been bitterly disappointed if my first attempt at orbit succeeded.

It's not the failing you're talking about, but the sense of accomplishment at overcoming a difficult task. There's a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a difficulty from being ignorant and a difficulty from a lack of skill. I feel that KSP promotes the former far to much.

[Trann]

Substitute "have tons of fun discovering what works and what doesn't, and feeling a sense of pride and accomplishment on each launch" for "struggle," and I agree with you there.

When I first started throwing rockets "up", I used to enjoy trial-and-error runs. Simple rockets meant success wasn't too far off. As I progressed and took on more challenging tasks to go deeper into space with more complicated multi-part vessels, the repetition of trial-and-error grew tiring because I knew I was missing some information that would make things easier. Not perfect, not without risk, and certainly not without some level of trial-and-error but definitely not random guesswork, either.

That's when I discovered KER. It gave me the TWR and delta-V numbers I needed to enjoy the game again, numbers you wouldn't go to space without.

I still fail spectacularly with some designs. Knowing that I have positive TWR at each stage and enough delta-V to get to orbit (or very near a place) is enough. Having to refuel due to discrepancies or such is realistic. Having to relaunch because I didn't know I had a negative TWR or was abysmally underfueled shouldn't happen.

I think Aqua's last statement has some merit:

Don't you think it's ridiculous to tell us the needed delta V and burn time for a maneuver node when there's no display how much delta V and burn time are in the tanks?

Those numbers matter when you reach space. They should matter before you leave the VAB, too.

[*Aqua*]

@Snark

For aerodynamic stability we have easy to use indicators. For TWR and delta V we have nothing (except pen & paper or mods). That's why I opened this thread.

What if you arrived at Jool and change plans: Instead of landing on Pol you try flybys at all moons. How do you know you have enough fuel for that? You can only try it out (with a high possibility to fail) or grab a calculator. That's NOT user-friendly.

The people who get frustrated do so because they don't know why it doesn't work.

It's not about concepts it's about indicators you have to know to implement concepts. How should a player know that he's wasting fuel when there are no numbers for that, when there's nothing to compare against? He only sees the results (didn't reach orbit) and is as clueless as before the start.

Even experienced players like Scott Manley (and me, I have played KSP for 935 hours) would gladly welcome a vessel information display. Why? Because he also doesn't take out a sheet of paper to calculate his rocket. Instead he also relys on KER and MechJeb.