Simulators

[cephalo]

Often when you are planning a mission to other worlds, there is nothing on Kerbin that can prepare you for what your crafts capabilities need to be. HyperEdit is a great tool for this problem as it allows you to easily test craft in their target environments, but it's a shame to see a players first visit to Jool through HyperEdit instead of actually flying there. The alternative to HyperEdit though is guaranteed mission failure after much time and effort, because there's a lot of stuff you just can't prepare for until you try it. It's not feasible to fly to Jool every time you want to test a Jool spaceplane.

It would be better if this functionality were built into the game, with a clear distinction between a simulated mission and a real mission, maybe using textureless planets and no environment effects, so that when the real mission comes, you get the full visual impact.

[Pronoes]

I don't see the need myself. As you said, nothing can prepare you for the real thing so why not just do the real thing? 

Hyperedit is available for users who want to use it, as is "save" and "load". 

I suspect for a lot of people, the entire game is based on trial and error. Try getting up there only to not have enough dv, back to the drawing board. Argh.. I released my moon lander while still in earth orbit. Back to drawing board. Omg, my ship is perfect right until not having enough RCS to manoeuvre adjust to get caught in saturns orbit, leaving me flying out to the nether at ungodly speed. Drawing board.

whether it's a simulator or "real" ksp, it makes no difference. You will still have to go through the motions of doing it.

[cephalo]

I think trial and error is fine for Mun and Minmus, but once you're out of the Kerbin system, your 'trials' are real-life consuming ordeals. Getting to low Jool orbit for your test is a lot of busy work for a craft that probably won't function properly for the next 10 trial runs. HyperEdit serves the function just fine, but you can mess up your career with that if you accidentally go back to the space center and get your 'program firsts' achievements by cheating and don't happen to notice.

It would be nice to have a more official way to test craft. I also think it would be very easy to implement, with just some minor graphical changes.

Edited December 10, 2015 by cephalo

[pandaman]

Something like this would be good IMO.

It's been suggested several times before too.

I think rather than, in effect, hyperediting to your 'target' it could do something like change the planet graphics to a simple sphere and maybe base the accuracy of the simulation on knowledge gained by observation and experiments.    Eg.  Until you have been and tested the atmosphere you don't know exactly how thick the atmosphere is.

This would also give a practical reason to do science.

[Pronoes]

19 minutes ago, cephalo said:

HyperEdit serves the function just fine, but you can mess up your career with that if you accidentally go back to the space center and get your 'program firsts' achievements by cheating and don't happen to notice

Copy your save file and rename it "simulator"

[KSK]

It's a good idea - I liked the part about blank planets until you go there 'for real'. Kerbal Construction Time had a good implementation (it probably still does - haven't played for a while) - you could start your tests from the launchpad or from any sphere of influence. Testing cost money too, to provide a bit of balance.

[Matt77]

28 minutes ago, KSK said:

It's a good idea - I liked the part about blank planets until you go there 'for real'. Kerbal Construction Time had a good implementation (it probably still does - haven't played for a while) - you could start your tests from the launchpad or from any sphere of influence. Testing cost money too, to provide a bit of balance.

It does, though I disable the simulation cost as I think the price I pay to upgrade the space centre should include a few PC's.

A recent update has added the option that you can't simulate a body until you've visited it (echoing a post above, a reason for probes).  Scansat integration would be cool, if you just got the data you've scanned in the simulation plus what can be gathered from observations from Kerbin - planet size is only approximate, and thus your simulation could be slightly out.  Atmosphere would be even more of a guess until you drop a probe into it.

[Goody1981]

I think this is a great idea - you want that feeling of exploration, not of "I just arrived at Jool for the first time, and it looks exactly like it did in the 'simulations'.."

In a similar vein, I reckon the textures of the planets in map mode could be simpler 'representations' rather than, again, identical to the planet. That way there is literally no other way to see it apart from going there.

2 hours ago, Matt77 said:

A recent update has added the option that you can't simulate a body until you've visited it (echoing a post above, a reason for probes).  Scansat integration would be cool, if you just got the data you've scanned in the simulation plus what can be gathered from observations from Kerbin - planet size is only approximate, and thus your simulation could be slightly out.  Atmosphere would be even more of a guess until you drop a probe into it.

This sounds awesome! Might have to take a look at KCT

[Matt77]

Please note only the first sentence confirming the previous posters comment is fact, the stuff about scansat is just pie in the sky... Not sure if its even possible...

[Goody1981]

Thanks  I did understand you, though re-reading my post I can see what you're saying. It's cool that KCT only allows you to simulate somewhere you've been. The Scansat stuff (edit: that I get isn't real... Haha I must be tired this morning!) sounds amazing though - god I love that mod

Edited December 10, 2015 by Goody1981
Comprehension of my dumbness

[Redhotita1]

As you guys said, I would make the planets "invisible" like in career, you need to discover the planets, check gravity pull, size of the planet, stuff like that... you observe them from Kerbin, and you study them by orbiting. Kerbals are kinda stupid, right..?  That would be interesting.

As for the "simulation" thing there's a mod for it... but I like the fact trial and error. The fact I check everything in the VAB, make sure everything will work out and if it doesn't... Apollo 13 mission alike starts.

[magico13]

I'd love for KCT's simulations to require you to transmit data to work properly. So once you enter orbit with a probe and transmit a report, then you can do orbital simulations. Once you land you can start simulations landed, but before then perhaps there's no physical surface (like Jool). With regards to the atmosphere, something weird could happen. I just have to find the time to add those features :/

[problemecium]

I have also been wanting a Simulator for a while now. My vision was a large, dome-shaped building in or near R&D. When you click to enter it, it prompts to load a vessel (a la the launch sites), but instead of putting it on a pad, it puts it in a black void with zero gravity. And it's of course free to use and will not save any Kerbal deaths that occur inside. It would be useful for things such as these:
- Testing delta-V (you start at 0.0 m/s, so just burn all the fuel and see how fast it says you're going)
- Docking training
- Acceleration and G-force tolerance (e.g. for large motherships)
- Screenshots to use for craft diagrams.

[YargJay9991]

Um, guys. Not having a simulator, is kind of the point of the game. You need to use your own knowledge, however basic or advanced it may be, to achieve these goals. The only other alternative to HyperEdit is not certain failure (ok, sometimes it is). The game is designed to be able to: visit planets, make orbit, build stations, build bases, fly planes and explore; all without using HyperEdit, or simulators.  The idea is your knowledge grows as you experiment and go beyond your comfort zone. A simulator is a comfort zone...

I think a simulator would detract from the original game and shouldn't be implemented. It's just not KSP.

 If you want it, mod it. There are plenty of people out there who are probably capable.

Sorry to throw a wet blanket on the works, but I don't think this is a good idea for the stock KSP. Great idea for a mod though.

Happy Flying

YargJay9991

[kotomikun]

The point has already been made that, while you can just do everything by trial-and-error, it can end up taking a frustrating amount of time. Getting to another planet can take hours, and if your lander or spaceplane or whatever doesn't have enough delta-v or has some other fatal issue you have to do it all over again, and it can take a lot of tries to get it working. Some people don't mind this, but others don't have the time and/or patience for it.

Honestly, the main problem is that there's no in-game delta-v display for your vessel, or plot of how much delta-v you need for various maneuvers. Launching a rocket without that information is like supergluing your car's gas cap and driving off without checking the gas gauge or how far you're going. It's very "Kerbal," but it's also a sort of fake difficulty. A simulator where you can pretend-fly around a planet with similar gravity to the one you're headed for would work, too. (Not really cheating, either, since most things other than delta-v can be tested on or around Kerbin, with probe cores if you don't want to risk killing astronauts. Although that makes me feel like a full simulator isn't really necessary, if it's almost entirely for the delta-v issue.)

[DomiKamu]

19 hours ago, cephalo said:

Often when you are planning a mission to other worlds, there is nothing on Kerbin that can prepare you for what your crafts capabilities need to be. HyperEdit is a great tool for this problem as it allows you to easily test craft in their target environments, but it's a shame to see a players first visit to Jool through HyperEdit instead of actually flying there. The alternative to HyperEdit though is guaranteed mission failure after much time and effort, because there's a lot of stuff you just can't prepare for until you try it. It's not feasible to fly to Jool every time you want to test a Jool spaceplane.

It would be better if this functionality were built into the game, with a clear distinction between a simulated mission and a real mission, maybe using textureless planets and no environment effects, so that when the real mission comes, you get the full visual impact.

HyperEdit has some issues: some parts are missing (broken?) when you set a ship/probe from launch pad to orbit. I'm using KSP 1.0.5 (1028) and HyperEdit 1.4.2 from Sandbox mode for doing probes tests before "real" launch in career mode.

[pandaman]

For me a simulator would be primarily a time thing (both in game and real).

 Example - I want to design a lander for Tylo.  I use KER so know my lander's Dv and TWR etc. but I want to check how the RCS behaves.   The only way I can test this in stock is by flying there and trying it, which is a lot of time and for career funds too.  And if it needs a tweak I have to do it all again. If I could run a simulation, even a not fully accurate one, I would be able to refine my design before spending as much time and funds.  I would not object to (in fact i would bebin favour of) these simulations costing some funds and game time to do.

I KNOW there's hyperedit and I CAN do it in a separate sandbox save, but it would be nice to do it all in one stock save to avoid losing the 'flow'.

[Xeldrak]

I will quite often use two safegames. One is my "real" game where I play career and one is a sandbox game.

For example if build a Duna lander in my career game, I will copy it to sandbox, hyperedit it to orbit around duna test it there. Once I see  that it works I will use it/continue building in career mode.

[Mister Dilsby]

14 minutes ago, Xeldrak said:

I will quite often use two safegames. One is my "real" game where I play career and one is a sandbox game.

'Safegame' is a great word for a simulator file  I also have one real one and one sandbox for testing. The test one flies a "Bill Space Program" flag, and is of course where Engineer Bill simtests crewed designs before he or any of his friends launch for "real".

[Curveball Anders]

On 2015-12-12 02:37:17, Xeldrak said:

I will quite often use two safegames. One is my "real" game where I play career and one is a sandbox game.

For example if build a Duna lander in my career game, I will copy it to sandbox, hyperedit it to orbit around duna test it there. Once I see  that it works I will use it/continue building in career mode.

This is exactly how I do it too.

My only problem is that I sometime get stuck in the "simulator" doing ridiculous stuff for too long and forget the result of my "simulation" (yes, I'm old)

 

[RocketSquid]

My general ksp game flow is:

1. Do all sorts of stuff in sandbox, ranging from silly (Seperatron powered SSTO) to serious (VASIMR operated duna missions).
2. Take the most practical ideas into career or science. If they are functional but too high level or expensive, I go back to sandbox to make a cheaper one.
3. Launch the best, most efficient, and cheapest rockets that come out of the career-box strategy in career. Use the most fun ones for sandbox.

I spend a lot of time in sandbox, testing the stupidly fun or amazing-but-expensive ideas, and also sending random objects into orbit.

[mattinoz]

I think even with the Gung Ho-ness of Kerbal's a simulator would still be of great use to a space program.

In terms of underlying function we are talking about two parts.

-1) some way to fast switch between a clean saved game file and our main career game. So that is protected yet we still get access to crafts made in that main game.

-B) a way of move the craft to other locations. Something like hyperedit or  my preference would be start the craft in 100km orbit then use nodes to calculate a flight path then jump some part of the craft to that point. Could then be used for mission planning and dV targets.

Sure there is lots function more you could do with the simulator but to me the just above would be massive improvement to enjoying the game.