Realism vs. Kerbalism?

[GagaX]

Ok, here is my point:

Kerbals are not humans, Kerbin is not Earth, thus: Kerbal rockets should not be like human rockets.

On the other hand: Kerbin is earth like, and Kerbals are, well, somewhat like humans. Laws of physics and rocketry are the same (almost), so their rockets should be a bit like ours. But how much?

My opinion is that they are too similar to real life rockets, and with each new update getting more and more so. Don't get me wrong, i think devs are doing great job, but i think that the game is drifting away from original idea (at least how I perceived it, having played KSP from version 0.16 i think).

What I'd like to see is parts with performance similar to stock, but a bit more creative in design, something unique Kerbaly. I guess that this is not very popular veiw, since a lot of mods focus on "realism": real solar system, real fuels, soyuz parts, space shuttle and so on. Again, don't get me wrong, these are all great mods, but I don't think they are contributing to Kerbal universe.

So, instead of pushing realism, let's focus on expanding Kerbal universe, by making original Kerbal design style.

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by GagaX

[Frozen_Heart]

I think that it should be based on realism with a simplified and slightly exaggerated edge to it. I've always perceived kerbal as a semi realistic spaceflight simulator that shows the basics of how things work.
I like the small planets and half size rockets as it makes it easier and less time consuming for new player, but things like no life support are disappointing as that is one of the main considerations of spaceflight.

[Gaarst]

As far as stock KSP gets, you're not going to have real life performances with rockets that only need 3.5 km/s dV to get to orbit. In real life, you need at least 9 km/s dV for LEO.

You can make your rockets look like real ones, but they will not perform like real ones. For most players this is not a problem, but for those looking for realism it forces them to get mods. And even then, I cringe every time I make it to the Moon with a 2200t rocket.

I don't think parts should be copied off real parts though, I like how KSP works like a LEGO game when it comes to building rockets, with everything fitting on top of evertything. One of my major complaints with RO is that besides parts from a pre-made rocket, nothing is going to fit on your [insert random part here].

[panzer1b]

Im all for some whackyness, but i do feel the basic physics and logic behind everything should be realistic.  One thing i really really like in KSP is that its orbital mechanics (bugs aside) are pretty much spot on.  Despite playing my share of sci-fi games (and watching too many movies/tv shows to count), i have to say KSP is actually one of the first ones that is plausible, as in no stupid atmosphere in space (god how many movies and games have that issue), and well, even the engines make sense (regardless if they perform as reality suggests).

 

All in all, i feel that KSP should be first and foremost FUN to play.  This is what i calk critical, and i consider 100% realism to be LESS FUN then what we have now (and believe me, i have actually tried RSS or whatever that realism overhaul mod is).  The issue (for me) with 100% realistic game would be the severe limitations itd put on doing anything fun/useful.  Myself, i really really enjoy SSTOs, and in RSS they are borderline impossible (well ive never managed it during the short time i tried that mod), i also like to make capital ships, and get into shooting wars with starfighters, ships, stations, tanks, bunkers, ect.  In stock, all of this is possible and with the realistic orbital mechanics, challenging but not limited too heavily in any way.

 

I just feel that if squad was to go 100% realism, itd make the game less fun, heavily restrict functional vessels to mostly airplanes and rockets (you can forget about launching a SSTO, or a capital ship, or anything that is considered whackjob rated), and some features of realism are in my opinion also tedious and boring.  Take life support, not that i have anything against it, but when i gave those mods a try it was extremely annoying to send manned anything, and i switched to 100% droids, which only limited my enjoyment of the game and added nothing fun.  Please no "realism for the sake of it", but only when it doesnt decrease our options which have gotten more and more limited with say the engine overhauls in 1.0, no more turbojet to orbit, no more pankakes, no more massive flat UFO launching vertically (structural panels back then let you fly them at any angle and same drag), ect.  Personally, i feel the 1.0 update was great, and well worth loosing some sci-fi builds, but please no life support, realistic solar system (unless we get sci-fi engines or intertial negators so we can actually go to other planets with SSTOs).

[eddiew]

13 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

All in all, i feel that KSP should be first and foremost FUN to play.  This is what i calk critical, and i consider 100% realism to be LESS FUN then what we have now ...The issue (for me) with 100% realistic game would be the severe limitations itd put on doing anything fun/useful.  Myself, i really really enjoy SSTOs, and in RSS they are borderline impossible...

Definitely agree with this. Realism makes it harder to go anywhere (there's a reason we haven't gone past our own Moon), and life support just makes it so that your ultra-long mission never happens.

Visually, I think half the charm of KSP is that a lot of the rocket parts look rather familiar... if they seemed strange and alien, they'd be less endearing.

[Jovus]

The whole point of this game for me is that it simulates real-llife physics as closely as possible while not just being an engineering and modelling program but actually a game. So it depends what you mean.

 

I don't mind using Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. I don't mind planets being 10x too small. I'd appreciate it if Isp made some kind of internal sense other than 'game balance', but it's not a big deal. I find the over-powerful reaction wheels irritating, though I understand why they are the way they are - magical torque covers a multitude of sins on the part of our SAS/heading hold.

 

It really, really irritates me that the fuel tanks in stock are so heavy. I wish there were some simple life support, because space exploration isn't solved simply by the ability to accelerate quickly - there are a lot of other considerations, and they're potentially interesting. Plus, it ups the stakes. (There's a difference between "if I don't make this landing, Jeb is going to die," and "if I don't make this landing, I can always come get Jeb when I feel like it.")

And if you're talking about changing things like conservation of momentum or energy, then get out.

[GagaX]

I agree, current physics model is just right, not to hot, not cold.

What i am talking about is aesthetics, how parts look visually. It's just not right for me to fly little green men in real life spacecraft. I would like them to be just a little bit different and original.

Visually, I think half the charm of KSP is that a lot of the rocket parts look rather familiar... if they seemed strange and alien, they'd be less endearing.

Not strange and alien, just a little bit different

Edited November 30, 2015 by GagaX

[rocketbuilder]

As a new forum member and a relatively new ksp player, I think that you should have to build rockets to fuzzy guide lines, having to make them aerodynamic but not having to add life support. Squad have done a good job as of yet and I think that SSTOs shouldn't be able to have 7 km/s of dv but only go a bit further than orbit.

0.90 was an ok representation of this but 1.05 has been the best as it limits SSTOs and forces heat-shields. But if squad continue making it more and more realistic, then I think people may stop playing. Make rockets explode allot but not toooooooo much!

 

 

 

[Curveball Anders]

I prefer realistic enough to explode when totally bonkers while allowing someone with basic understanding of physics to figure out how to correct the problem.

While being a bit whacky and cartoonish when stuff go wrong to encourage experimentation

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Curveball Anders

[mythic_fci]

Definitely option 3 (75% real). The way parts and therefore spacecraft work in KSP is just perfect - too realistic, and the game becomes more of a scientific bore and less of a game as you keep trying to balance your rockets perfectly and do calculations to make sure everything works. However, 0% realism would detract from the way the game's meant to be - a mostly-realistic rocket simulator with fairly good physics. Also, the way parts are used in the game is also a limitation - for instance, the Apollo SM had its hypergolic fuel tanks, oxygen and hydrogen tanks, RCS fuel and other electrical equipment all crammed together in one metal can; in KSP, the closest we can get to that is to stack service modules to store things on top of each other.

[klgraham1013]

23 hours ago, eddiew said:

Definitely agree with this. Realism makes it harder to go anywhere (there's a reason we haven't gone past our own Moon), and life support just makes it so that your ultra-long mission never happens.

My ultra-long missions tend to happen just fine with life support.

So here's what I say (my opinion): Kerbal Space Program should be a game about the trials and tribulations of space travel in a simplified form.

So, I choose the third option.

[LitaAlto]

I want the game to be "realistic" enough that you can use the ideal rocket equation, calculate meaningful TWR, design with realistic expectations about drag, dynamic pressure, etc. etc.

I'd also like to see clouds in stock. Damn it.

Beyond that--I'm not much for realism in KSP. The historical space race was an anomaly of WWII and the Cold War that followed. But I'd rather fantasize about a species that doesn't need war to justify space exploration. (It's also why I tend to frown on weapons mods and jokes about killing Kerbals needlessly. I KNOW I'M NO FUN AT ALL.  )

[juanml82]

I think one of the main issues with realistic payload fractions is that the game lacks the parts to deliver rovers or to do orbital or in situ assembly other than aligning docking ports. So you can't have realistic payload fractions and fully aerodynamic rockets while being able to set up fully functional bases. Some leeway is needed to do something else than merely planting the flag.

[jros83]

I think visually and aesthetically rockets should look like they would in the real world but I think physics and handling should stay as they are in game. It's a nice balance between Close Enough without being Brutally Realistic.

[Wjolcz]

The game isn't really "drifting" away from it's original idea IMO. It just isn't finished... yet.

 

I would like to see some real life space travel elements, but in a simplified form, like LS, except without all those waste products, CO2, radiation and other things. Simple "Food" resource with a greenhouse part. Also some other RL things. The third option is what I chose, of course.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Veeltch

[KSK]

Another 75%er here, although actually, I'm probably more like an 85%er. I would love to see life support rolled into stock and I completely agree with juanml82's comment about payload limitations - it would be great to have more parts to allow that to happen.

I also agree with GagaX's comment about kerbal aesthetics. Given a semi-realistic physics model, a rocket is going to look much the same (pointy end up top, engines at the bottom) whether it be a human or a kerbal rocket. However, I think a more consistently 'kerbal' art style would add a lot to the game. Shape-wise KSP rockets would look pretty similar to real ones but the art style would make them a bit different.

Unfortunately this doesn't really help the folks that like to build replica craft - and there are quite a few of them on the forum. I guess that including 'human aesthetic' parts could be left to mods but I'm not sure how popular that would be.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I occasionally think about the visual direction, in particular how parts aren't a bit more beat up/stylized (eg the mk1 chute is described as "found by the side of the road," so seeing some patches and distress could be expected), but there is a tough line there to not make it too cutesy. I also think having it toon rendered could be an interesting experiment, then again I like toon rendering but understand it's not everyone's cup of tea. In the end though, the gameplay is what matters most and KSP ranks high there so visual style tends to be less of a concern than gameplay from my armchair. Rockets go boom and make things go up and not crash

Edited December 2, 2015 by Waxing_Kibbous

[tater]

The choices are weak. It's Kerbal space program, so I'm willing to accept changes that represent the reality of kerbals---past that, they should aim for the physics to be as realistic as possible, if for no other reason than it make balance/etc easier.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I have to say I quite like the balance they are striking--on point but simplified physics and a playful atmosphere. I could even see a little less polish aesthetics wise. I like the sleekness porkjet's done for spaceplanes but there's got to be some color and diversity there. I think this could especially be true for the buildings on early tiers. I'd just love to see a bit more character there. 

That said I have to agree with others that LS would be a really great addition if handled right. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I like realism. Sure, KSP has awe-inspiring physics, etc, but that's as far as I want it. 

I would want parts with current stock values, no change needed there.

I really disagree with LS being mandatory. If devs really think it is necessary, then fine, so be it. I'll be OK so as long as it can easily be turned OFF.

Really wishing a 50% option was there.

 

 

Anyway, I just want a game where I can geek out w/ my spaceplanes, and fantasies, have the realism in there to make it feel authentic, but not so real that it becomes frustrating, and eventually boring. 

[jros83]

I'd just like to chime in that I'm against life support being made stock. Some things IMHO opinion are best left abstracted and obviated.

[Frozen_Heart]

7 hours ago, jros83 said:

I'd just like to chime in that I'm against life support being made stock. Some things IMHO opinion are best left abstracted and obviated.

I think there should be life support but as a single, simple resource rather than this huge complex thing some people are suggesting.

[r4pt0r]

2 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I think there should be life support but as a single, simple resource rather than this huge complex thing some people are suggesting.

Snacks!

[Rath]

I want kerbalized realish parts.  Some can be completely original, but I like to have rockets with go-faster stripes like the hu-mon ones

[Pthigrivi]

I liked USILS when I tried it out. The greenhouses could use an art pass and it should be called compost, not mulch (compost feeds gardens, mulch is a nutient poor weed suppressant), but other than that the basic mechanics are simple and clear. Really they could just add LS storage to modules and a few containers that slide from green (LS days) to red (compost), and make a few greenhouses that could slide it back. If things were simple and forgiving enough it could add a sense of reality and urgency without crippling new players.