Realism vs. Kerbalism?

[jros83]

1 hour 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.

I could definitely "live with that."

[tater]

Some sort of simple LS system is required.

[jros83]

57 minutes ago, tater said:

Some sort of simple LS system is required.

I wouldn't say "required" but I could live with it if it indeed is "simple."

Edited December 3, 2015 by jros83

[klgraham1013]

Snacks and USI-LS are good options.  I think USI-LS is more likely, seeing as RoverDude already works with Squad.

[Pthigrivi]

When I was testing USILS I was also using Base Systems which had an algae bank that could turn ore into fertilizer. To be honest I don't know if fertilizer would be too fussy for stock but it might be nice if there was some way LS could be tied into IRSU. 

[panzer1b]

As long as LS isnt forced upon us i could care less either way, not like im going to use it as its nothing but a tedious mechanic from my perspective, and also, who even says kerbals NEED to eat?  There have been plenty of theories saying they are some form of plant, or perhaps aliens that dont require anything but say sunlight or even the heat from the cabin to survive.

While LS seems to be something alot of people want (and im not going to say dont add it in as well, more options are always helpful), but PLEASE MAKE IT OPTIONAL!  Not everyone find something that is arguably tedious and doesnt let you just deploy a mission and get back to it when you want to, not when the game tells you to "fun". 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

If the people want LS, I vote Snacks, and make it toggleable please

[tater]

18 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

As long as LS isnt forced upon us i could care less either way, not like im going to use it as its nothing but a tedious mechanic from my perspective, and also, who even says kerbals NEED to eat?  There have been plenty of theories saying they are some form of plant, or perhaps aliens that dont require anything but say sunlight or even the heat from the cabin to survive.

While LS seems to be something alot of people want (and im not going to say dont add it in as well, more options are always helpful), but PLEASE MAKE IT OPTIONAL!  Not everyone find something that is arguably tedious and doesnt let you just deploy a mission and get back to it when you want to, not when the game tells you to "fun". 

Please make physics optional, and add warp drives, it's silly to have to wait for launch windows, or plot burns.

Am I doing it right?

Life support is part of what actually creates a challenge, particularly in the mini solar system of KSP. You plan differently if rescue is a few years away.

[klgraham1013]

Challenge does not equal tedium.  Many games have used limited resources and time-based elements to great effect.  KSP can do the same.
 

Though, really, my argument for it's inclusion, is to show, more accurately, the challenges a real space program might face.  Be it, in a more simplified manner.

Edited December 3, 2015 by klgraham1013

[jros83]

36 minutes ago, tater said:

Please make physics optional, and add warp drives, it's silly to have to wait for launch windows, or plot burns.

Am I doing it right?

Life support is part of what actually creates a challenge, particularly in the mini solar system of KSP. You plan differently if rescue is a few years away.

You're comparing apples to a book about oranges simply to support your bias.

[panzer1b]

Anyways, i can understand some of the hostility towards my view against LS, but i have actually tried two different LS mods, and i just found that they got boring/annoying more then fun after a while, and only seemed to hamper my enjoyment of the game.  Im not against LS fundamentally, as perhaps in career it would be beneficial, but it only removes logic from my KSP universe.  I play KSP in a very different way from most, mostly make sci-fi ships and i do ALOT of shooting wars between various factions i make.  This sort of playstyle essentially makes LS non existent logically as kerbals would (provided they even are similar in any way to humans to begin with) have the technology to provide a constant food supply.  That said, despite viewing the game as more sci-fi then reality (if i want to experience reality i step away from my computer ), i do really like stock physics and somewhat real world limitations thrust upon engines, dV, ect.  i have tried many mods like warp drives, but they arent for me as i find it too easy to play that way, and i like a challenge, just not in the form of LS or anything of that style.  I already have to do enough supply missions in the form of bringing missiles and bombs from kerbin to whatever facility/warship/vehicle needs them, as well as fuel supply, and that i personally enough supply runs, the last thing i want to do is be forced to constantly have to babysit every single facility, and check on the 1000s of soldiers, pilots, captains, ect i have deployed throughout the solar system, i just have so many ships out there, that i dont have time or feel like supplying each of them with food.  So to anyone who thinks my opinion against LS is stupid, just consider what i enjoy from KSP, i like to do combat, lots of combat, and i dont exactly enoy having to send constant supply missions (or in the even that LS becomes self-sufficient in the form of greenhouses, adding needless part counts for a mechanic i feel there is no need for).

 

All in all, feel free to add any form of LS, just PLEASE make it toggleable or optional, for us sandbox players that just dont care or desire to deal with the mechanic.

And on a separate note, please make any antenna limits also optional, i see antennas as subspace transmitters (and thus do not care about matter blocking them), that and i view probe cores as droids and not remotely controlled drones, droids can think on their own and do their own missions without input from kerbals (especially after kerbals create sentient AI ).

Edited December 3, 2015 by panzer1b

[Pthigrivi]

Sorry we've probably drifted off topic a bit here, but I'm positive if LS was ever included it would be toggleable. 

[jros83]

Truth is less people want it forced on us than those who do, but those who do are forming a tyranny of the minority elite. Opposition to LS being made standard is met with derisiveness and a haughty air of "well I'm just better than you because I want more of a "challange" than you do" and it rather gets on my nerves. Mods or an option that can be turned off is fine. Anything more than that would be wrong and only cause a rift in the playerbase.

[Hannu2]

KSP can have some cartoonish elements, but it should be qualitatively as realistic simulator as practically possible. I like (after trying RSS) that the small solar system is a good idea and Kerbals and their somewhat risky attitude are funnier that humans, but I play KSP because I like space technology and physics. I want to make crafts which could be possible now or in near future in real world. Complex and multistaged expeditions with tight dv and supplies tolerances to planets, simple stations or very basic resource utilization projects instead of single stage to everywhere -spaceplanes or huge self-sustained colonization projects.  It is important that I have to make similar plans and decisions than real space programs (but of course in supersimplified and entertaining style). I want to have very limited dv and other resources and make nearly optimal transfers. I want also to make mistakes and recover from them, sometimes fatal and sometimes not fatal but I can not achieve objectives of missions. Too overpowered parts and too easy physics (for example aerodynamics) would be like car racing game in which I do not have to brake before curves or shooting game in which I can walk, see and shoot through the walls but enemies can not. It would not be fun, just stupid and boring.

[juanml82]

Regarding LS, rather than food and air, which adds micromanagment, I'd rather add the need for habitats for long journeys. I can understand food and air being abstracted, but sending a single kerbal in an MK1 landing can to Eeloo and back breaks immersion IMHO

[pandaman]

On 03/12/2015, 12:43:33, 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.

Same here.

 LS is a crucial part of space exploration so it makes sense to have it represented, but for stock it should be a simple, abstract, representation in the same vein as ISRU.

That said, it needs to have a toggle and perhaps settings.

[arise257]

My biggest problem in the game isn't the style/aesthetics of the parts, but the construction within certain classes of parts. For instance, I don't understand why we have about 20 different types of wings and 15 different tanks instead of creating them procedurally. I think it would be much better if the build process for a wing went something like:

Select wing shape (rectangular/triangular/sweep) --> Select Fuel (L/OX/Mono/None) --> Select texture --> Form dimensions w/ mouse --> Commit to part

or tanks/fuselages:

Select tank shape (cone/cube/drum/polygon/sphere) --> Select Fuel (L/OX/Mono/None) --> Select texture --> Form dimensions w/ mouse --> Commit to part

That alone would dramatically expand the aesthetic foundations/horizons of any design. Almost no one would create identical crafts with those two changes. Sure, any craft becomes less reproducible for newbies, but it frees everyone to create more "alien", "cartoony", or "realistic" designs, all without violating the concepts of a Kerbalized universe.

[TJH]

When I play a game like KSP, I play to learn about space as well as having fun. I don't want to be forced to learn thousands of equations, and have a scientific calculator to work out when to burn; I want a layer of complexity that is fun yet challenging. 

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, juanml82 said:

Regarding LS, rather than food and air, which adds micromanagment, I'd rather add the need for habitats for long journeys. I can understand food and air being abstracted, but sending a single kerbal in an MK1 landing can to Eeloo and back breaks immersion IMHO

I had a suggestion earlier that each Kerbal would leave KSC with a Happiness level of 100%, but that percentage would decrease over time, and experience would pay out for each Kerbal based on how "Happy" they were when they got to their destination. The rate of decrease could be slowed (or nearly stopped) by bringing along more kerbals, and by including adequate habitation. This would provide a real game mechanic incentive to bring along hab modules, but only insofar as a player was interested in leveling up his or her crews.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[nothingSpecial]

You know, the KSP style wasn't very consistent. Well, the style that was in 0.23, at least. I do like the overall look of "classic" parts.

But as for "rockets start look a lot like real"... They are basically supposed to. You want to have your rocket aerodynamic and your spacecraft spaceproof, aren't you?

 

Yet I'm all for making rockets short and not seamless. I like orange-black stripped decouplers, for example.

 

Something like this. Smooth, looking as whole in any combination, but distinguishably modular, with some user0friendly markings (like decouplers) and some funny elements (like sticker on engine's nozzle "don't look inside while working"), and overall - rocket, but smaller.

[pandaman]

14 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I had a suggestion earlier that each Kerbal would leave KSC with a Happiness level of 100%, but that percentage would decrease over time, and experience would pay out for each Kerbal based on how "Happy" they were when they got to their destination. The rate of decrease could be slowed (or nearly stopped) by bringing along more kerbals, and by including adequate habitation. This would provide a real game mechanic incentive to bring along hab modules, but only insofar as a player was interested in leveling up his or her crews.

That is a neat idea.

 I don't see it as an alternative to LS as such, but it does give a good alternative if you want the 'flavour' of LS without the logistics.  It would also complement a stock LS system beautifully.

[RocketSquid]

I think realistic physics is a must, but life support is not terribly necessary. I agree that it would certainly add challenge, but if you want that sort of challenge just set a timer and blow up your craft if it's in space for too long. Life support either needs to be simple, e.g. "Snacks", renewable (with something like a farm, or even something very kerbal like a "Snack Kitchen"), and adjustable, like re-entry heat, or else it needs to be abstracted slightly better, for example, you need at least 2 more seats than kerbals, or kerbals require electric charge.

Meanwhile, for construction purposes, I agree. Not every part should be a white cone or cylinder. We already have that odd sort of kerbal construction with the I-beams and structural panels.

[cantab]

KSP became successful by choosing realistic physics, a bold decision when it launched in an era where unrealistic sci-fi flight was the norm, and I feel it should retain that philosophy.

To that effect I've no problem with the game outright omitting "realistic" aspects in order to make things simpler and more accessible. I'm fine with no fuel boiloff, engines that can deeply throttle and relight as often as you like, and even the lack of life support. But if some feature or aspect of spaceflight goes into the game I feel that realism in that aspect should be strived for. In particular I feel the goal of the aerodynamics should be realism, and not some "fun" arcadey flight model. I also feel that the science collection wants a thorough overhaul, followed by the career system, to more closely follow how real scientific study and real space program administration respectively works.

Of course there can still be exceptions. For example I consider full-sized planets bad for gameplay because they make orbital launches take too long.

Edited December 5, 2015 by cantab

[Sanic]

I think we should have at least ONE totally explody kerbal part.

[tater]

On December 3, 2015 at 11:51:09 AM, jros83 said:

You're comparing apples to a book about oranges simply to support your bias.

Actually, my analogy is spot-on. Manned spaceflight is a combination of rocketry, and life support. Both are necessary systems, and the latter drives pretty much all mission design. The reason the moon was challenging technologically was the requirement that it be really safe for astronauts.

Note that everything would be a toggle, anyway, as it already is. It's not noobs that would use this, it's a replay thing. If you've been playing a couple years and you are still on stock-sized kerbol system, and not using LS, etc... you must be harder to bore than I am.