Why not in stock?

[fireblade274]

I feel like this has been asked before, but whatever.

I just took a look at Kerbal EDU website for the first time and noticed it has features such as a:

Flight recorder & Function tool

Design helper & Resource flow analysis

Design helper is shown when you’re assembling a rocket. It has two tabs, Design data and Data select. Data select lets you choose specific information like the mass, thrust or delta-v of your vessel and display it in the Design data tab. There’s tons of information available, the skill is to distinguish what data is useful.

Data shown in Design data can also be pre-selected in the Mission Editor and Data select tab hidden, so that students only see the data relevant to the current mission/lesson.

Resource flow analysis can be enabled from the button at the bottom of the Design Helper. It shows which parts use/produce what resource (like Oxidizer or Liquid fuel) and from/to which part.

AND this 

Force & Energy

Force arrows show the forces affecting your spacecraft. You can use force arrows by attaching “force arrows” - part to your spacecraft. Then all the forces that affect your spacecraft will be showed as holographic arrows.

Energy spheres is a part that when attached to a vessel shows a window with two spheres visualizing the relation of potential and kinetic energy of the vessel.

 

Why are these displays left out of the actual game and instead reserved for only the EDU version of the game? Why must the normal version be restricted to using mods that are not always working properly and come with all the ups and downs of mods in general? 

To me it would be helpful to have more tools for viewing statistics and a great addition to have a stock, user friendly flight recording tool that would not only record your mass and delta/v change over time, but also let you view the actual flight later, like the battle replays of a Total War game.

Idk, maybe I should have posted this in the suggestions box but its also a question; is there a good reason why these helpful display tools are not in the main version of the game?

[MK3424]

You can port these functions from kerbaledu by copy-pasting the kerbaledu folders in the gamedata folder.

 

But yeah, it should be in stock too.

Edited February 17, 2016 by MK3424

[Red Iron Crown]

They're not Squad's to include, those add-ons are the property of the KerbalEDU people.

[Clockwork13]

10 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

They're not Squad's to include, those add-ons are the property of the KerbalEDU people.

Huh? I thought Squad developed KerbalEDU.

[Red Iron Crown]

4 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

Huh? I thought Squad developed KerbalEDU.

No, they're a separate company that partnered with Squad. They sell their educational enhancements packaged with a KSP license, as I understand it.

[Clockwork13]

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

No, they're a separate company that partnered with Squad. They sell their educational enhancements packaged with a KSP license, as I understand it.

Ah, thanks.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

Has anyone here played KerbalEDU? How is it? Is it similar to stock, or more organized and with stricter goals?

[AbacusWizard]

I'd love to be able to see force arrows (the F12 aerodynamics display is a good start, but not quite enough), center of mass, center of lift, center of thrust, and center of drag while in flight.

[QPDO]

Dont tell me it also shows dV and TWR ?

[Warzouz]

8 minutes ago, QPDO said:

Dont tell me it also shows dV and TWR ?

[Troll]

What? that's totally cheating!

[/Troll]

Edited February 18, 2016 by Warzouz

[QPDO]

Definitely But I very concerned that the upcoming PS4 players will be forced to play without even the option to have those really vital info displayed (or get a mod for it).

1 minute ago, Warzouz said:

[Troll]

What, that's totally cheating

[/Troll]

 

[Red Iron Crown]

10 hours ago, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

Has anyone here played KerbalEDU? How is it? Is it similar to stock, or more organized and with stricter goals?

I have a copy, it's very similar to stock. The big differences:

• It's DRMed, you can only have one install. Understandable given the rampant piracy in the educational market, but annoying for a regular player used to the less restrictive version.
• The force displays and data logging require special parts. The displays are interesting at first but eventually feel a bit like a novelty after a while. The data logging is pretty slick, you can define your own functions and export the data for further analysis.
• There's a historical campaign. I can't comment on the quality of it as I haven't played through it, but it looks pretty good.

 

6 hours ago, QPDO said:

Dont tell me it also shows dV and TWR ?

It does, using KER's vessel simulation algorithm (used with permission). I found the display a bit crude when I played it, KER and MJ are a bit more refined in that regard.

To summarize: I wouldn't recommend KerbalEDU for regular players, most of the features are available in mods already and the DRm is pretty restrictive. I'm sure it's fine for educational purposes.

[Sanic]

I can't believe KerbalEDU has a DeltaV meter. I would bet everything I own on the deltaV meter not being SQUAD's idea.  

I'm just saying the people who should be able to learn the rocket equation don't have to do it, while the regular players (who by all means could just be trying to have some fun) do? Isn't that a little weird?

Or install KER.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sanic

[MK3424]

13 hours ago, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

Has anyone here played KerbalEDU? How is it? Is it similar to stock, or more organized and with stricter goals?

 

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I have a copy, it's very similar to stock. The big differences:

• It's DRMed, you can only have one install. Understandable given the rampant piracy in the educational market, but annoying for a regular player used to the less restrictive version.
• The force displays and data logging require special parts. The displays are interesting at first but eventually feel a bit like a novelty after a while. The data logging is pretty slick, you can define your own functions and export the data for further analysis.
• There's a historical campaign. I can't comment on the quality of it as I haven't played through it, but it looks pretty good.

 

It does, using KER's vessel simulation algorithm (used with permission). I found the display a bit crude when I played it, KER and MJ are a bit more refined in that regard.

To summarize: I wouldn't recommend KerbalEDU for regular players, most of the features are available in mods already and the DRm is pretty restrictive. I'm sure it's fine for educational purposes.

While KerbalEDU is DRMed, you can port the KerbalEDU functions without having to worry about the DRM.

[AlphaMensae]

3 hours ago, Sanic said:

I can't believe KerbalEDU has a DeltaV meter. I would bet everything I own on the deltaV meter not being SQUAD's idea.  

I'm just saying the people who should be able to learn the rocket equation don't have to do it, while the regular players (who by all means could just be trying to have some fun) do? Isn't that a little weird?

Or install KER.

I think SQUAD has an "It's a game!" mentality with KSP, when at this point in time it should be a simulator.  That's why the stock version STILL has no Delta-V or TWR indicators in the VAB/SPH or in flight, no RCS balancing aids, no docking alignment aids of any kind, weak joints resulting in wobbly rockets that simply don't happen IRL, no HUD showing Ap and Pe outside of map mode, no autopilot of any kind (note that KSP has the parts to make a US space shuttle but the real one was flown by 5 computers), no transfer window porkchop planner, and on and on and on...

"But those are the challenges!" some people say.  Um, no, they are not.  Building a Mun rocket and executing a successful Mun landing is a challenge, not knowing how much dV that rocket has when building it is just an artificial handicap that all too many videogames have.

[nomercy4you]

Quote

I think SQUAD has an "It's a game!" mentality with KSP, when at this point in time it should be a simulator.  That's why the stock version STILL has no Delta-V or TWR indicators in the VAB/SPH or in flight, no RCS balancing aids, no docking alignment aids of any kind, weak joints resulting in wobbly rockets that simply don't happen IRL, no HUD showing Ap and Pe outside of map mode, no autopilot of any kind (note that KSP has the parts to make a US space shuttle but the real one was flown by 5 computers), no transfer window porkchop planner, and on and on and on...

"But those are the challenges!" some people say.  Um, no, they are not.  Building a Mun rocket and executing a successful Mun landing is a challenge, not knowing how much dV that rocket has when building it is just an artificial handicap that all too many videogames have.

I just logged in to quote this post. I really don't understand why Squad is thinking that this is a challenge or a good thing. You fly a black box and can not learn. Make some other things harder, like aerodynamics or crash tolerance if you want a challenge, but don't assume players are dumb and don't wanna know how their vehicel works or how to improve it. Every player should see how the dv changes if you take an engine and then add more tanks to it, it is hard for new (and young) players to learn that stuff (I am talking about 10 year old kids). And ofc the meaning of those values (twr, dv etc.) should be included in the tutorial.

Edited February 18, 2016 by nomercy4you
forgot to add quote

[DrMarlboro]

1 minute ago, Laguna said:

I think SQUAD has an "It's a game!" mentality with KSP, when at this point in time it should be a simulator.  That's why the stock version STILL has no Delta-V or TWR indicators in the VAB/SPH or in flight, no RCS balancing aids, no docking alignment aids of any kind, weak joints resulting in wobbly rockets that simply don't happen IRL, no HUD showing Ap and Pe outside of map mode, no autopilot of any kind (note that KSP has the parts to make a US space shuttle but the real one was flown by 5 computers), no transfer window porkchop planner, and on and on and on...

"But those are the challenges!" some people say.  Um, no, they are not.  Building a Mun rocket and executing a successful Mun landing is a challenge, not knowing how much dV that rocket has when building it is just an artificial handicap that all too many videogames have.

I think the idea is that the game is about having fun rather than having ridiculous realism. In all honesty thinking back on the way i used to play, to the way I now play it's quite polarizing. I can see why squad is reluctant to add these things to the game as this change in play didn't come about until I installed KER and other info mods. 

The reason that KerbalEDU has these things is simply because it IS and educational tool and not a game. 

[AlphaMensae]

16 minutes ago, nomercy4you said:

I just logged in to quote this post. I really don't understand why Squad is thinking that this is a challenge or a good thing. You fly a black box and can not learn. Make some other things harder, like aerodynamics or crash tolerance if you want a challenge, but don't assume players are dumb and don't wanna know how their vehicel works or how to improve it. Every player should see how the dv changes if you take an engine and then add more tanks to it, it is hard for new (and young) players to learn that stuff (I am talking about 10 year old kids). And ofc the meaning of those values (twr, dv etc.) should be included in the tutorial.

I think Felipe's (HarvesteR) original vision for his little space game still guides the company.  You can now download official early free versions of KSP; I checked out 0.7.3 and it truly was a simple little game, with very few parts (only one LF engine, one tank, one command pod, etc.) and not much to do other than throw those parts together and launch the resulting product and see what happened.  The lack of information tools and aids and such made sense then, but now, with KSP evolving into a relatively complex simulator with a huge number of parts and a very many things to do, it does not.

I agree, there should be REAL challenges like making realistic aerodynamics, the real solar system (well, a redressed Karbalized version, but realistic in all other areas), life support and realistic comms not just stock but the standard "normal" level of difficulty.

[nomercy4you]

I don't think KSP is too easy and for me it is ok to get harder aerodynamics and real scale solar system with mods. But those informations (burn time, dv, twr) are really a _basic_ need for 95% of the people. Don't add too much but I can not play the game unmodded anymore. You really need theese informations if you just want to have fun too! At least if you want to go to mun one time and you are not satisfied crashing the 76th plane or rocket into the ground.

Edited February 18, 2016 by nomercy4you

[luizopiloto]

I know 2 mods that does that... KER and RCS build Aid...

[AlphaMensae]

13 minutes ago, luizopiloto said:

I know 2 mods that does that... KER and RCS build Aid...

Yeah, but they should have been put in the stock game a long time ago.  The fact that they still haven't been...is very puzzling. Mods that change KSP, like BDArmory and Interstellar, should stay mods, but stuff that is part of Real Life rocketry should be included.

I started KSP with 1.0.4 and did (well, still doing) Science Mode, and completed the tech tree without any mods, but no manned mission went beyond the Kerbin system (only a few simple unmanned probes to Eve and Duna) and I didn't do anything really complex.  Once that happened, I started adding various mods, so by the time I start a Career in 1.0.5 (or maybe it will be 1.1) I will be using quite a few:  KER, MJ, RCS Build Aid, KJR, Navball Docking Alignment Indicator, Tweakscale, all of NecroBones parts mods (with Interstellar Fuel Switch), Atomic Age, Community Tech Tree, Interstellar, OPM and whatever else may interest me.

[AbacusWizard]

∆v is easy enough to get without a mod; just type or paste

[I_sp]*9.8*ln([mass]/([mass]-5*[fuel])

into your browser's Google search bar and replace [I_sp] with your engine's specific impulse, [mass] with your ship's current total mass in kg (or in tonnes and multiply by 1000), and [fuel] with the total amount of relevant fuel (including oxidizer if relevant) on board. Hit Enter and boom, there's your ∆v. I do this all the time.

 

As for TWR, usually all I need to know is that it's greater than 1, so I just multiply the ship's mass (in tonnes) by 10 and check if the result is bigger or smaller than the total thrust of the engines (in kN).

[fireblade274]

3 hours ago, Laguna said:

I think SQUAD has an "It's a game!" mentality with KSP, when at this point in time it should be a simulator.  That's why the stock version STILL has no Delta-V or TWR indicators in the VAB/SPH or in flight, no RCS balancing aids, no docking alignment aids of any kind, weak joints resulting in wobbly rockets that simply don't happen IRL, no HUD showing Ap and Pe outside of map mode, no autopilot of any kind (note that KSP has the parts to make a US space shuttle but the real one was flown by 5 computers), no transfer window porkchop planner, and on and on and on...

"But those are the challenges!" some people say.  Um, no, they are not.  Building a Mun rocket and executing a successful Mun landing is a challenge, not knowing how much dV that rocket has when building it is just an artificial handicap that all too many videogames have.

This, exactly.

[Red Iron Crown]

4 hours ago, MK3424 said:

While KerbalEDU is DRMed, you can port the KerbalEDU functions without having to worry about the DRM.

While true, that technically violates the EULA for KerbalEDU so I can't recommend it.

[MK3424]

Yeah, i've done it for my install. (i have both EDU and regular KSP installed)