Realism vs Stock

[C1DEAN]

1 hour ago, justidutch said:

I have yet to find myself being bored or restricted or unchallenged by playing stock, so that is still what I do.  But it is really nice to know that one day, when I think there is nothing left to be done in KSP, there are a thousand options out there to change the way the game can be played.  It's a lifetime of entertainment for the initial $22.50 I paid.  Not a bad deal (and I sincerely hope that no one forgets that point...)

Yeah, Realism Overhaul is challenging but Stock can be just as challenging. 

I once tried a crewed mission to Eve. lets just say R.I.P Jebidiah . 

[Geschosskopf]

21 hours ago, C1DEAN said:

I was just wondering which style of KSP gameplay the community prefers: stock or realistic . Personal, I like playing in Realism Overhaul because of the challenge. But with stock, you can go crazy and create truly kerbal machines.

What is you all's choice and why?

It depends on how you define "realism"  Many of this forums' "realism-mongers" mistakenly believe "realism" means "just like Earth" but fail to take into account why things on Earth (and this particular universe in general) are the way they are.  All the observable laws of physics, chemistry and whatnot we know in daily life are the result of the fundamental forces of nature and similar such things way down at the most basic level, and these "config file settings" totally shaped this whole universe and everything in it.  Therefore, the only way "realism" can truly mean "just like Earth" is if you're talking only about this particular universe or one with an identical "config file"

The stock KSP universe, however, demonstrably has a VERY different "config file" from our universe.  For example, the AVERAGE density of Kerbin itself is greater than that of osmium, the densest element known in our universe, because Kerbin is so small yet still produces standard Earth gravity.  It is therefore apparent that everything in KSP is made out of some exotic form of matter that cannot exist in our universe and vice versa.  IOW, we have nothing in common on our respective periodic tables.  And this can only be so due to KSP operating with very, very different fundamental forces and such things.  And the list goes on.  KSP gravity is very different from ours, KSP routinely violates EVERY conservation law in our books, etc.

Therefore, a better way to define "realism" is "in conformance with the physical laws of the universe".  Which means that the ONLY way "just like Earth"-style realism is truly realistic in KSP is if you use RSS.  If you apply "just like Earth"-style "realism" to the stock (or any mid-sized) KSP universe, you are actually making the game UNrealistic because Earthly physics CANNOT work at those scales.  For this reason, the old pre-1.0 "soup-o-sphere" was truly more realistic than the "kinda like Earth" atmosphere Kerbin now has.  Given the immense density of Kerbin and everything on it, it SHOULD have a "soup-o-sphere".  And of course Kerbals shouldn't have life support needs based on humans.

So to me, as long as I play in the stock-sized KSP universe, the way things work there in stock is by definition the most realistic way to play, because it all must necessarily conform to the physical laws imposed by Squad when they created that universe.  I might use one of the more abstract life support mods when I feel like it, but as far as rebalancing engines to be more like on Earth, using real-life rocket fuels, etc., that is NOT realistic at all.  OTOH, with RSS, all that IS realistic.

 

 

 

 

[C1DEAN]

1 minute ago, Geschosskopf said:

It depends on how you define "realism"  Many of this forums' "realism-mongers" mistakenly believe "realism" means "just like Earth" but fail to take into account why things on Earth (and this particular universe in general) are the way they are.  All the observable laws of physics, chemistry and whatnot we know in daily life are the result of the fundamental forces of nature and similar such things way down at the most basic level, and these "config file settings" totally shaped this whole universe and everything in it.  Therefore, the only way "realism" can truly mean "just like Earth" is if you're talking only about this particular universe or one with an identical "config file"

The stock KSP universe, however, demonstrably has a VERY different "config file" from our universe.  For example, the AVERAGE density of Kerbin itself is greater than that of osmium, the densest element known in our universe, because Kerbin is so small yet still produces standard Earth gravity.  It is therefore apparent that everything in KSP is made out of some exotic form of matter that cannot exist in our universe and vice versa.  IOW, we have nothing in common on our respective periodic tables.  And this can only be so due to KSP operating with very, very different fundamental forces and such things.  And the list goes on.  KSP gravity is very different from ours, KSP routinely violates EVERY conservation law in our books, etc.

Therefore, a better way to define "realism" is "in conformance with the physical laws of the universe".  Which means that the ONLY way "just like Earth"-style realism is truly realistic in KSP is if you use RSS.  If you apply "just like Earth"-style "realism" to the stock (or any mid-sized) KSP universe, you are actually making the game UNrealistic because Earthly physics CANNOT work at those scales.  For this reason, the old pre-1.0 "soup-o-sphere" was truly more realistic than the "kinda like Earth" atmosphere Kerbin now has.  Given the immense density of Kerbin and everything on it, it SHOULD have a "soup-o-sphere".  And of course Kerbals shouldn't have life support needs based on humans.

So to me, as long as I play in the stock-sized KSP universe, the way things work there in stock is by definition the most realistic way to play, because it all must necessarily conform to the physical laws imposed by Squad when they created that universe.  I might use one of the more abstract life support mods when I feel like it, but as far as rebalancing engines to be more like on Earth, using real-life rocket fuels, etc., that is NOT realistic at all.  OTOH, with RSS, all that IS realistic.

 

 

 

 

 

5

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. I meant Realism Overhaul not just Realism.

Tourist sorta said the same thing.

Edited March 29, 2016 by C1DEAN

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

It depends on how you define "realism"  Many of this forums' "realism-mongers" mistakenly believe "realism" means "just like Earth" but fail to take into account why things on Earth (and this particular universe in general) are the way they are.

No, we never "mistakenly believe(d)" anything, we just thought that Kerbal's laws of reality were silly and wanted "realism" that conformed to the physical laws we know and love.

[Geschosskopf]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

No, we never "mistakenly believe(d)" anything, we just thought that Kerbal's laws of reality were silly and wanted "realism" that conformed to the physical laws we know and love.

If you know and love Earthly physical laws so much, then surely you must agree that NONE of them can realistically apply in the stock-size KSP universe, and thus forcing them into stock-sized KSP is fundamentally wrong and the exact opposite of true realism.  

Physical laws don't just sit there affecting only rockets, they affect the physical make-up of the whole universe.  They make stars and planets the sizes they are, they make the familiar chemical reactions, etc.  So unless you allow the Earthly physical laws to resize the KSP universe as well as affect rockets, then the continued existence of the stock-sized KSP universe while having "just like Earth" physics and chemistry violates the very laws you claim to hold so dear.  There is no way to argue around that and the more you try, the less I think you really understand what physical laws are all about.

Now, that said, KSP is a game, set in an imaginary universe.  IOW, it's fantasy of a sort, except that instead of dragons and magic it deals with rockets, something we have actual experience of in our universe.  Because it's fantasy, we can give it a pass on certain areas of realism as long as it doesn't break our willing suspension of disbelief.  That suspension is much easier to maintain when the game universe is internally consistent with its own laws of physics, which is vital to KSP because gameplay revolves around physics.  Therefore, it is suspension-breaking in the extreme to change the game in such a way as to make glaring, highly obvious inconsistencies in its physical laws.  Which is exactly what you get if you try to make KSP physics "just like Earth" without also imposing RSS.  OTOH, it's a lot easier to maintain suspension if KSP physics are NOT "just like Earth" because it's intuitively obvious (at least if you know what a physical law really is) that Earthly physics cannot possibly work in stock-sized KSP.  IOW, "different universe, different physics, all good" instead of "wait, this part of the universe works under one set of laws and that part works under a different set of laws---that's totally wrong".

 

 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

If you know and love Earthly physical laws so much, then surely you must agree that NONE of them can realistically apply in the stock-size KSP universe, and thus forcing them into stock-sized KSP is fundamentally wrong and the exact opposite of true realism.

I, too, agree that the stock solar system is too small.

Quote

OTOH, it's a lot easier to maintain suspension if KSP physics are NOT "just like Earth" because it's intuitively obvious (at least if you know what a physical law really is) that Earthly physics cannot possibly work in stock-sized KSP.  IOW, "different universe, different physics, all good" instead of "wait, this part of the universe works under one set of laws and that part works under a different set of laws---that's totally wrong".

Oh, we're totally past that, now that "everything will fly (and crash) as it should."  Mostly.

Edited March 29, 2016 by regex

[Gojira1000]

I wander back and forth.

[John FX]

I used to play stock until it got boring, then I installed a bucketload of mods until I got fed up of the crashing and now I play realism overhaul because the whole reason I have been playing KSP all along is because I wanted to be in NASA as a kid (or a time traveller) and now I can build all the rockets I like and send them all over the solar system from earth.

[LeuZ]

I personally prefer Realism Overhaul. For me its more motivating to launch to the real Moon or Mars than launching to duna. Also I like the added difficult and challange.

But still when I get to frustrated I switch to stock or to my one tenth stock system save

@Arugela    That would be really cool

[Renegrade]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

For example, the AVERAGE density of Kerbin itself is greater than that of osmium, the densest element known in our universe, because Kerbin is so small yet still produces standard Earth gravity.

Actually, there are denser materials*.  Electron-degenerate matter is significantly denser than Kerbin for instance (ten billion kg per cubic meter - Kerbin's only off by a factor of three from conventional matter).  An electron-degenerate object with the same mass of Kerbin would be only roughly 11km in radius (vs 600km).  To give it the same surface gravity as Earth/Kerbin would probably involve something even smaller (I'd plug the numbers into the equation, but I've gotta leave shortly.. er, I mean, SHOULD have left a little while ago.....exercise left to the reader?).

* - well, theoretical materials.  Nobody's ever landed on the night side of a neutron star and brought back a sample.   

[Geschosskopf]

2 hours ago, Renegrade said:

Actually, there are denser materials*.  Electron-degenerate matter is significantly denser than Kerbin

Sure, but Kerbin on average is denser by far than even the locally rare densest element on Earth.  The point is, Kerbin can't be explained by our laws of physics or chemistry, so it is unrealistic to impose our laws on the KSP universe, and even worse to apply our laws only to part of the KSP universe.  They just don't fit and make glaring contradictions, which makes the overall physics of the game less realistic than stock.

[Draco T stand-up guy]

11 hours ago, C1DEAN said:

Yeah, that is what I sorta thought the complex part would be.  Integrating mods into one save, and no mods in the other

The mods aren't saved into each game save. The game save would only have the settings as it does now and the players progress.

The problem is that the loading process loads all mods and then you get to where you can set the settings for the game that you're going to be playing. This means that you can't choose the mods that you want to play with from within the game set up.

As it stands you'd need a front end loader* that directs which mod is loaded and even that would probably be quite complex to set up.

* You'd set up the game prior to the game loading and you'd have to go through it every time that you wanted to play. Still, I'd say that it would be better than having to have multiple game installs.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

The point is, Kerbin can't be explained by our laws of physics or chemistry, so it is unrealistic to impose our laws on the KSP universe, and even worse to apply our laws only to part of the KSP universe.

This is very true.  I often wonder why the patched conics simulation in RSS works exactly as it should considering all we did was change the physical parameters of the planets and their orbits to match our actual solar system.  It's almost as if KSP is using our own math pertaining to the physics of Earth.

[C1DEAN]

5 hours ago, John FX said:

I used to play stock until it got boring, then I installed a bucketload of mods until I got fed up of the crashing and now I play realism overhaul because the whole reason I have been playing KSP all along is because I wanted to be in NASA as a kid (or a time traveller) and now I can build all the rockets I like and send them all over the solar system from earth.

Hah! that's exactly what I did. once, I believed you would ruin the game if any mods were installed. Next thing ya know, my game was crashing from all the mods I had installed. 

11 hours ago, Kllrtofu said:

Yeah In RSS/RO I use as litlle parts packs as possible and where possible only use their engines. I love trying to build everything from scratch tailoring to specific missions. And only start building in redundancy with standardized LV's. But even then I will fuel them only as much as needed for the specific orbit or target. Which reminds me... I guess I love RO just a tiny bit more than Stock play.

That's probably were i would stand on the matter. I believe that both game play styles have their pros and cons, and we can appreciate each game style.(although I like Realism Overhaul a bit better .)

Edited March 30, 2016 by C1DEAN

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, regex said:

This is very true.  I often wonder why the patched conics simulation in RSS works exactly as it should considering all we did was change the physical parameters of the planets and their orbits to match our actual solar system.  It's almost as if KSP is using our own math pertaining to the physics of Earth.

Not in the least.  In KSP, you can achieve escape velocity in a prograde direction from a planet and still have it catch back up to you from behind, to find that your velocity relative to that planet is now right back at it instead of going away from it like you burned.  The only thing KSP gravity has with our gravity is that it's got the same proportional relationship to the planet's mass.  Otherwise, it bears no resemblance.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Otherwise, it bears no resemblance.

The underlying laws and systems, a patched conics simulation, are designed to model our own solar system's in a general way; a silly solar system was simply added on to it.

[Superfluous J]

14 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

In KSP, you can achieve escape velocity in a prograde direction from a planet and still have it catch back up to you from behind, to find that your velocity relative to that planet is now right back at it instead of going away from it like you burned.

That's not part of the simulation. That's a bug due to how it's iterated. You can verify this by restoring from a quicksave and rerunning the simulation at a different (usually lower) time warp level and seeing that the phenomenon is not 100% repeatable.

[Geschosskopf]

7 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

That's not part of the simulation. That's a bug due to how it's iterated. You can verify this by restoring from a quicksave and rerunning the simulation at a different (usually lower) time warp level and seeing that the phenomenon is not 100% repeatable.

Non-repeatability is another difference between KSP and Earth gravity.  But this is all a facet of the 2-body gravity in KSP, whereas our universe has N-body.  That's a pretty substantial difference in itself.  And don't forget that despite having gravity proportional to their mass, the moons of Jool somehow remain in stable orbits instead of eating each other, falling into Jool, or being tossed out of the system.  So yeah, KSP gravity has very, very little in common with our gravity.

KSP routinely violates all conservation laws I can think of.  Off the top of my head:

• Mass is created when a Kerbal goes on EVA and destroyed when he gets back inside.
• Charge behaves strangely at all times.
• Angular momentum goes away when you're not looking.
• Regular momentum and thus kinetic energy spontaneously generate quite frequently.
• If I thought more about it, I could list more

KSP violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thanks to these and several other features.  One of the most blatant ways is how you can use fuel cells to run drills and an ISRU, with these machines producing enough of a surplus not only to keep the fuel cell going indefinitely but also refueling a ship.  That's like having an electric car where the motor not only moves the car but also spins a generator that charges a battery that runs the motor.

On the subject of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as radiant heat from open flames in KSP.

All bodies in the solar system are made of a form of ultra-dense matter that cannot exist in our universe, and the KSP sun would not be a star.  This shows that the fundamental nuclear forces are vastly different from our own.  And we already know that KSP gravity is very different, and so is electromagnetism thanks to the violation of charge conservation.  So that's radical differences in all 4 of the fundamental forces, upon which everything in a universe is built.

You might say that these are all bugs, limitations, oversights, or whatnot, but OTOH all the above properties of the KSP universe were derived from direct observation and experimentation, just the same as the properties of our own universe.  That makes them equally valid in their own contexts and shows that Earthly expectations have no place at all in the KSP universe.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Non-repeatability is another difference between KSP and Earth gravity.  But this is all a facet of the 2-body gravity in KSP, whereas our universe has N-body.  That's a pretty substantial difference in itself.  And don't forget that despite having gravity proportional to their mass, the moons of Jool somehow remain in stable orbits instead of eating each other, falling into Jool, or being tossed out of the system.  So yeah, KSP gravity has very, very little in common with our gravity.

Ah, but the underlying math is based on a patched conics simulation designed to be accurate enough to estimate requirements for a space mission in our own solar system.  The basic laws of KSP are based on our own, imperfect though they may be.

[Geschosskopf]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

Ah, but the underlying math is based on a patched conics simulation designed to be accurate enough to estimate requirements for a space mission in our own solar system.  The basic laws of KSP are based on our own, imperfect though they may be.

Your position is analogous to saying that a royal flush is equivalent to an ace-high straight just because both hands happen to have the jack of clubs in them.  Similarity on 1 point out of many does not equality make, nor justify calling it so.

KSP has enough rough similarities on a few points with our universe to make it a recognizable parody of our universe.  If the Kerbals were six-eyed, tentacled blobs living on a totally bizarre planet with no visual similarities to Earth, but everything else in the game was exactly the same, then nobody would be demanding that physics behave just like on Earth.  But nobody would get the joke, either, nor be affected by the cuteness factor of humanoid Kerbals and their silly animations, so the game wouldn't sell as well. 

 

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Your position is analogous to saying that a royal flush is equivalent to an ace-high straight just because both hands happen to have the jack of clubs in them.  Similarity on 1 point out of many does not equality make, nor justify calling it so.

And yours is that if the wind knocks over my king, you win by Checkmate because that must be how the game designers wanted it and not - as is actually the case - just a result of an imperfect setup.

Edited March 30, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[OhioBob]

10 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Given the immense density of Kerbin and everything on it, it SHOULD have a "soup-o-sphere". 

Actually that's not true.  What determines a planet's ability to retain an atmosphere is its temperature and its escape velocity.  Although Kerbin is immensely dense, it is still a relatively low mass body with an escape velocity of only 3431 m/s.  A planet of its size, mass, and temperature shouldn't be able to retain any appreciable atmosphere.

[Superfluous J]

40 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

KSP violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thanks to these and several other features.  One of the most blatant ways is how you can use fuel cells to run drills and an ISRU, with these machines producing enough of a surplus not only to keep the fuel cell going indefinitely but also refueling a ship.  That's like having an electric car where the motor not only moves the car but also spins a generator that charges a battery that runs the motor.

What do you think powers fuel pumps on Earth? Someone call OPEC and find out how they built their perpetual motion machine.

[Guest]

All the disbelief we suspend...

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Non-repeatability is another difference between KSP and Earth gravity.  But this is all a facet of the 2-body gravity in KSP, whereas our universe has N-body.  That's a pretty substantial difference in itself.  And don't forget that despite having gravity proportional to their mass, the moons of Jool somehow remain in stable orbits instead of eating each other, falling into Jool, or being tossed out of the system.  So yeah, KSP gravity has very, very little in common with our gravity.

KSP routinely violates all conservation laws I can think of.  Off the top of my head:

• Mass is created when a Kerbal goes on EVA and destroyed when he gets back inside.
• Charge behaves strangely at all times.
• Angular momentum goes away when you're not looking.
• Regular momentum and thus kinetic energy spontaneously generate quite frequently.
• If I thought more about it, I could list more

KSP violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thanks to these and several other features.  One of the most blatant ways is how you can use fuel cells to run drills and an ISRU, with these machines producing enough of a surplus not only to keep the fuel cell going indefinitely but also refueling a ship.  That's like having an electric car where the motor not only moves the car but also spins a generator that charges a battery that runs the motor.

On the subject of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as radiant heat from open flames in KSP.

All bodies in the solar system are made of a form of ultra-dense matter that cannot exist in our universe, and the KSP sun would not be a star.  This shows that the fundamental nuclear forces are vastly different from our own.  And we already know that KSP gravity is very different, and so is electromagnetism thanks to the violation of charge conservation.  So that's radical differences in all 4 of the fundamental forces, upon which everything in a universe is built.

You might say that these are all bugs, limitations, oversights, or whatnot, but OTOH all the above properties of the KSP universe were derived from direct observation and experimentation, just the same as the properties of our own universe.  That makes them equally valid in their own contexts and shows that Earthly expectations have no place at all in the KSP universe.

The EVA kerbal should get his EVA fuel from the ship, but it doesn't so if you have the patience you can EVA-push your mk1 lander to Jool. But does the kerbal's mass not count when inside a capsule? I know it counts for command seats, but i never tested it for capsules though.

I agree with you on most of these, but I am skeptical about the ISRU. That is like saying coal miners exert more energy to mine the coal, than the amount of power the coal plant generates. ISRU is a lot different, but how much more energy is used in changing the chemical structure from ore to fuel? Is it possible that Mun ore is in a high-energy state instead of the realistic low-energy state that Moon ore is in?