I wonder why Squad doesn't want to give us a dV and TWR readout

[tater]

Actually, KER doesn't really go far enough from a planning standpoint---it does from it's side of things, but we really need the ability to pull up "Mission Planning" that allows us to set a parking orbit (at some arbitrary date), then apply multiple maneuver nodes, and see what the dv totals end up being. 100 km LKO insertion burn to Duna, then propulsive capture at Duna, then circularization there, then Kerbin transfer burn.

The nice thing is that that type of thing is really already there (I guesstimate by switching to my station orr whatever in parking orbit, then checking out the burn---but that is for NOW, not for 117 days from now. Yeah, there are transfer window planners, so you have to find the travel time, then add some slop for getting to the target site, then leaving, then look up the return burn, etc., and all that is simple transfers (and/or aero-captures), not slingshots, etc.

[mattinoz]

Could the Stock implementation start more simply to avoid edge cases.

I mean could we have a wet/dry mass per stage or stage mass and fuel mass.

That at least would take most of the tedium out of running the numbers.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, regex said:

@NathanKell was specifically addressing those who think this is something Squad can crap out in a few days without thinking, not the criticism of "we would like this in the game, it is a crucial feature".  The reason the feature has been pushed off until after the Unity 5 update likely has something to do with its complexity.

My mistake.  I was jumping at a perceived pet peeve of mine.

[kotomikun]

3 hours ago, tater said:

They get to the Mun, and plot a node to get back, but come up 50 m/s short on their maneuver node. They in fact chose a poor place to do the burn, and actually had the dv to get home, but only know that they now have 0 LFO left. Had the game bothered to tell them they had XXX dv remaining, and their sloppy, plotted burn used XXX + 50 dv, they'd have perhaps tried out nodes in different places of their orbit to see what if anything worked. Instead, they learn "moar boosters" when the craft they made was perfectly suited for the job.

This is the main thing that confuses me about the lack of d/v information. I think Squad has said they don't like how many people see KSP as merely a zany rocket disaster simulator. Adding a d/v display would go a long way towards helping people do more serious engineering, if they want to, without getting in the way of inefficient seat-of-the-space-pants designs (presumably you could turn off the d/v display if you don't like it). So why is this still a mod-only thing? It wouldn't be trivial to implement, because nothing that requires programming is ever trivial, but it would be less complex than most of the other things they've added to the game over the years.

TWR would also be nice to have, though it's not quite as important. Most of the engines are so powerful that it's rarely an issue unless you're launching from Eve or trying to be perfectly efficient. A d/v map isn't really necessary, since you can figure that out by trial-and-error, and it doesn't change when you build a new ship. (Transfer d/v can be determined by fiddling with maneuver nodes. D/v to orbit is roughly the low orbit speed, somewhat more if there's an atmosphere; so once you've reached orbit and made that realization, you can do it more efficiently the next time.) But the d/v of your vessel is the fuel of orbital maneuvers, and it's weird to not have a fuel gauge.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Maybe, but to me when you're doing simple rockets having a dV calculator isn't really something you need. Its not till you've been playing for a while and things get really complicated that both intuitive prediction and manual calculation become really difficult and overly time consuming. I tend to think you could leave the calculator locked until you upgrade the VAB and SHP to tier 2, but once you have it should be multi-stage. Perhaps a tier 3 upgrade could add a drop-down that would show TWR's for different bodies.

I've been thinking the same thing- since this thread started I've been considering a MM file that would unlock the KER parts after some building upgrades, or try to put them into the tech tree somewhere.

KER is important not just for the dV and TWR, but the surface alt. and PE/AP readouts are invaluable as well.

[StrandedonEarth]

I do know that a while back Harvester himself said he didn't want dV readouts, because he liked the trial-and-error way of the kerbals. He appears to have since come around, but I can see his point. When I started playing KSP, I had no real trouble, fuel wise, getting to the Mun and back in typical Kerbal over-fuelled fashion. Oddly enough, I had more trouble with later updates, where I figured I knew what I was doing and tried to be leaner and meaner, and kept running out of gas (early in careers I try not to use KER readouts; lower ISPs may have contributed to my difficulties). My very first Mun landing (I guess about 2.5 years ago) burned a ridiculous amount of propellants trying to zero out my horizontal velocity, but I still made it back to Kerbin

It doesn't that much play time to try to make orbit, and not that much more to try and do a Mun return mission. Trial-and-error isn't that painful, especially just trying for that first orbit. Where trial-and-error starts to be a real drag is going interplanetary, because of the play time invested. I would be in favor of having dV readouts being unlocked somewhere down the line, maybe based on milestones instead of tech or buildings.

[NathanKell]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

My mistake.  I was jumping at a perceived pet peeve of mine.

No worries, and thanks for the kind words as well. @regex is right that I was specifically addressing those who tend to believe that a feature is missing not because it's hard (and there are other super-pressing things to do too) but because we Just Don't Care Enough (and aren't sufficiently solution-focused). I am perfectly fine with people posting about what they feel are critical missing features (and I certainly myself would never want to play without dV info). However, when one shifts from critiquing to suggesting, there the difficulty of implementing the suggestion has to matter, to at least be acknowledged, and when it's flat-out ignored even when those most experienced in making such things chime in, that raises my hackles (especially when it's a suggestion I agree with!).

[Hobbes Novakoff]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Well that's what I'm saying, I want an Excel spreadsheet, not something someone might find "visually appealing".

I don't mean that the line-item, compact nature isn't visually appealing. I actually like it. I meant that the KER window is ugly, bulky, and horrendous to set up, because the default windows obscure a ton of the screen and the editing system is extremely slow. And the colors make it seem like you're playing a game from 2006.

For a stock implementation, I'd keep the general "spreadsheet" design. However, I'd get rid of the windows, and instead put everything in a bar extending from the right side of the screen, which you could customize to your liking. (Also, it would have a couple of different tabs. Maybe autoswitching based on situation.)

I want some eye candy. While I don't want big flashy dials and fluctuating bar charts and other useless crap, I do want:

1) The ability to make some readouts bigger than others (I'm not going to need to constantly glance at the inclination readout most of the time)

2) Red, yellow, or green gauges based on value. For example, vertical speed. 

[regex]

15 minutes ago, Hobbes Novakoff said:

I don't mean that the line-item, compact nature isn't visually appealing. I actually like it. I meant that the KER window is ugly, bulky, and horrendous to set up, because the default windows obscure a ton of the screen and the editing system is extremely slow. And the colors make it seem like you're playing a game from 2006.

Sure.  I guess I was trying to say that, for experienced players who already rely on the readouts from ENG and MJ (and VOID), the feature Squad writes will simply not cut it (at least, I'm 99% certain it won't...)

That's not a bad thing, per se, it's just the truth.  Squad writes KSP mainly with new players in mind and leaves the complexity to modders; after all, Squad now has to consider how KSP will look and play on a console while also keeping an eye on their bottom line now that they've expanded their ranks.  Those of us already used to our mods will continue using them.  That's one of the reasons I'm not excited about delta-V information getting into the game.  I mean, I suppose it'll make the modder's lives easier, especially if one can simply point to problems as being Squad's, but I'm still going to be installing the mod.

Edited April 1, 2016 by regex

[Columbia]

12 hours ago, boborene said:

Really? For a rocket sciences,  dv is utterly most important thing, how to fly something by guessing?

 

I said, to them, and to me. It's pretty easy to guess that a rocket can reach the Mun if it has enough sophistication and power.

I guess I'll use it once I go anywhere beyond Jool, but I have mods for that. I'm okay with it if it becomes stock.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Actually, KER doesn't really go far enough from a planning standpoint---it does from it's side of things, but we really need the ability to pull up "Mission Planning" that allows us to set a parking orbit (at some arbitrary date), then apply multiple maneuver nodes, and see what the dv totals end up being. 100 km LKO insertion burn to Duna, then propulsive capture at Duna, then circularization there, then Kerbin transfer burn.

The nice thing is that that type of thing is really already there (I guesstimate by switching to my station orr whatever in parking orbit, then checking out the burn---but that is for NOW, not for 117 days from now. Yeah, there are transfer window planners, so you have to find the travel time, then add some slop for getting to the target site, then leaving, then look up the return burn, etc., and all that is simple transfers (and/or aero-captures), not slingshots, etc.

Another aspect I think is worth considering is emotional tension. Players should get a legitimate thrill when they make it to orbit from Eve or nail a return aerocapture with their last ounce of fuel, and that requires leaving a bit of room for the actual execution. I think its perfectly okay to give people the basic information they need and then let them pad or cut things as close as they dare, and feel the consequences emotionally when they succeed or fail. I tend to think things could be much simpler if a planner simply assumed a safe parking orbit and let you know the rough dV necessary to capture, land etc. I think you could also get away with providing surface TWR, (maybe on different bodies, either by upgrading or by unlocking with milestones) dV in atmo and vac to get you most places you were going sensibly. Im sure Regex will still download KER, and it might not be enough to win you a Jool 5 challenge, but it would be clear and plenty enough not to build a rocket twice as heavy as it needed to be. 

But yes, I also agree mission planning in general is huge and some kind of transfer aid and alarm clock would be just as helpful as dV estimator.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[pincushionman]

I think there's some misunderstanding as to where the complexity is here.

Calculating dV is freakishly simple. Tedious, but simple.

Implementing it into the editor? Not so much. Why? Because the problem isn't the calculation. The problem is in defining the problem. In our case this is about the staging definition.

Thrust and Isp vary with pressure? Fuel flow or engine thrust ambiguity? The game needs to offer reasonable assumptions to the player and communicate those clearly, as well as offer the ability for the player to tell the game "you guessed wrong. Here's what I want."

it's similar to what engineers do in the real world. Anyone can do the math right. An engineer's job is to make sure the right math is being done.

Edited April 1, 2016 by pincushionman

[Mr. Scruffy]

I dont think a stock dv-calculator has to cover the fringe cases, as long as the assumptions it works with are mentioned in the KS-Pedia (e.g. alligned thrusters in vacuum). That picture a few pages back with thrusters on both ends on the rocket is rediculous - even a 5-year-old will figure that in this case all thrust will cancel out. But switch off one of those engines and the dv-calc is correct. So: While the game should not require players to sit over a notepad and a calculator, along with a formula collection when planing a mission, but it may assume common sense is being applied.

The other picture, with the dv´s listed in the construction manager looks fine to me - and it could be made even simpler as that pic lists the sum for all stages below each seperately - which is not really needed. Add that to in-flight mapmode along those buttons for craft-info, crew and mining.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I've tried to recommend this game to several friends and haven't had any luck despite all of them being very smart guys who tend to play games like Space Engineers, Factorio, Dwarf Fortress etc...

It's not that they don't get it, or couldn't get it if they tried long and hard enough. Mostly they are just very unimpressed with how barren the game is of any helpful information or tutorials. One of them said and I quote "It just struck me as really unfinished, like more of a technical demo than an actual game." Even my own brother who typically likes these sort of games even more than I do, bought a copy of KSP from Steam after hearing my glowing praise for months and months on end...and then promptly requested a refund after about 3 or 4 hours. He was appalled at the lack of even basic information, the lack of a proper tutorial, the lack of any explanation about anything at all. When I explained that I had learned everything from the forums and by installing a Dv mod like Kerbal Engineer, he was even less impressed that instead of the game teaching him to build and fly rockets as it should, he was expected to either have extensive prior knowledge or spend hours reading forum posts in an effort to decipher the games systems. I really couldn't argue with any of his points, I've always had a thing for trial and error games so I don't mind wasting time, but most people get a few hours a week to play a video game, if your game isn't inviting them in and making it easy to have a good time...they are going to spend what little time they have on something else. The lack of a stock Dv display is literally driving players away. It's driving casual players away by making the game seem more complicated than it is. It's driving hardcore players away by making useful information obscure and hard to obtain.

Trying to sell this game to a friend is like trying to sell them a car with no doors and three wheels by telling them you know where they can get some free doors, and that the car will drive mostly fine without that fourth wheel.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[KerbonautInTraining]

11 hours ago, Hobbes Novakoff said:

For a stock implementation, I'd keep the general "spreadsheet" design. However, I'd get rid of the windows, and instead put everything in a bar extending from the right side of the screen, which you could customize to your liking. 

What if you put dv info on the staging menu itself? I think that would be pretty intuitive. (It would make for an awesome addon to KER)

[cantab]

5 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Trying to sell this game to a friend is like trying to sell them a car with no doors and three wheels by telling them you know where they can get some free doors, and that the car will drive mostly fine without that fourth wheel.

You were saying?

But back on topic, I think your complaints are fair and of course Squad are trying to address them with the new tutorials and KSPedia in KSP 1.1. However, KSP is a game where mostly what you need to know isn't some invented game mechanics but how the real world works. I don't think a game necessarily needs to tutor and hand-hold the player through reality (though I'm not saying the game necessarily *shouldn't* tutor the player either). If I want to know how delta-V is calculated I can find out on Wikipedia.

To draw some analogies, does a racing game need to tell you that you should brake before a corner? Does FIFA 2016 need to explain the rules of football? Should Cities: Skylines include a detailed tutorial on highway interchange design?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

23 minutes ago, cantab said:

Does FIFA 2016 need to explain the rules of football?

If it wants to attract anyone that isn't already a hardcore football fan. I don't know the rules of football in the slightest. I'd be completely lost, and I'd probably want my money back.

Awesome car by the way!

[Foxster]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

. However, KSP is a game where mostly what you need to know isn't some invented game mechanics but how the real world works. I don't think a game necessarily needs to tutor and hand-hold the player through reality (though I'm not saying the game necessarily *shouldn't* tutor the player either). If I want to know how delta-V is calculated I can find out on Wikipedia.

If it's a real-world simulation rather than a game then we must consider that no one in the real world would run a space program with the ships designed on a let's-launch-it-and-see-if-it-works basis. You'd have an awful lot of data and calculations available to you. Even at the dawn of our space programs the dV and such would have been very carefully calculated before the engines were first ignited. 

[regex]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

To draw some analogies, does a racing game need to tell you that you should brake before a corner?

Sure does.  At least, GT3 did in the manual.  There was a nice explanation about current racing theory.

2 hours ago, cantab said:

Should Cities: Skylines include a detailed tutorial on highway interchange design?

Depends on how crucial it is to proper traffic flow.  I mean, I have friends who analyse that sort of stuff for a living and I don't think C:S goes into the depth they do, but if traffic management is a big part of the game then a tutorial or explanation of the mechanics would be welcome.

[pandaman]

As much as there should be, IMO, stock Dv and TWR tools and readouts etc I don't think it necessarily needs to give all of all of the different, more 'specialised' (for want of a better word), data and things that KER provides, useful though it obviously is to many players.

Definitely give us a bit more than just the raw basics in stock, but the more specialised or advanced stuff can still be obtained through KER or MJ etc for those that want it, without over complicating the stock system and risking it appearing too intense and putting players off.  It needs to be reasonably comprehensive of course, and user friendly.

[FunnyBunny14]

At the very least I would like to see a dv readout in the VAB and SPH per stage (not for jet engines though, that would a. near impossible and b. not so useful since dv in atmosphere means nothing). That information would also need to be available during flight then - not real time, just have the same readings as were given in the VAB/SPH - which could be accomplished by having the game save the dv readings from in the VAB with the craft file and then displaying it in a widget or somewhere. 

That's very basic though, and doesn't even account for some stages being landers, satellites, etc. I know I certainly wouldn't except such a half-baked measure from Squad. But coding for real-time dv readouts and accounting for stages with engines would be a nightmare, as every time you load a new craft or trigger a stage the game would need to call up the (dry) masses of every object on the craft. Every physics frame while not in time warp (and if you're good, only while the engines are on) the game would need to check the current fuel levels, the fuel flow, the minimum fuel levels given the current configuration and stage (fuel lines are important people!), which engines are being used and probably a lot more. 

The amount of call functions would be insane with all that going on, so the very first thing they would need to do is write some code to store most of the information for the craft in an easy to access way and then optimise it so it would only need to update the dry mass and minimum fuel levels when stages trigger or colissions occur (I forgot about those, that would not be fun). The fuel levels are already known thanks to the resource display, so that could still be separate. 

Good luck doing that in a few days...

Now that I think of it, it would be a good coding challenge for me. And having only a dv readout instead of the huge pile of data that KER throws in my face would be nice. Maybe I should try writing my own dv plugin...

Edited April 1, 2016 by FunnyBunny14

[micr0wave]

Maybe, to keep the try&error approach, have a readout for the dV spent in actual flight.

 

 

[John JACK]

Hello everyone! Played since .22, singed in just now to add my 5₪.

We now have article about "deltavee" in KSPedia. There is explained that is a delta of velocity and mentioned some equation. Also we had dV value in maneuver nodes since forever. And the game is sorely lacking of 1. explanation of the "deltavee" stuff and 2. simple display.

In KSPedia there must be a page telling that delta V is and how it's calculated. Basically, amount of velocity that vessel can gain by burning all the fuel depends on proportion of fuel mass to craft mass, and on engine ISP. Less basically, just spell Tsiolkovski's equation.

Simple display may be not so simple to program, that's absolutely and undoubtable correct. Thought considering all and every possibility of craft being Kerbal is not necessary. Stock delta V readout is most valuable to new players, early in Career mode, when resource transfer, docking and even fuel lines are not yet available.
First readout can just take single-stage craft wet mass, dry mass, engine ISP, The Equation and display number.
Next stock staging mechanic can be accounted. Game knows parts are still attached to rocket at any given stage, what engines are burning and how much fuel they have access to. Engines have ISP and fuel has mass and we have The Equation, so we can calculate delta V for all stages.
Right, there are many ways to kerbal it. But here comes "trial and error".

Actually, delta V can be pretty easy calculated manually in VAB/SPH. I do that for estimating monoprop thrusters dV, because KER do not. Detach anything that would be staged, Engineer Report shows wet mass. Empty all relevant tanks — Engineer Report shows dry mass. Look in parts list for ISP. Then get your slide rule, ask someone for right value of "g", multiply, add all stages, repeat all above when change any part. Implementing that in code really should be not that hard, but will spare me couple of minutes some hundred times. And when player overgrows simple rockets, they always can install a mod, make a spreadsheet, or make staging not to mess with calculations. But to new player even simplest dV readout will be a great help in understanding rocket science!

TWR readout by stages or just at launch will be easier — just add all lower stage engines thrust and divide it by gross mass. But IMO it's much less necessary than dV, because adding all engines together is simple, and lack of thrust is amended by MOAR.

Blackboard with cartoon rocket going to space or not going to space may seem simple, but really is not. You need not to calculate dV first, but consider all stages thrust, aero, poor piloting, and after all that compare result with some empirical value to get go, no go, or maybe go.

Delta V display is absolutely not about trial and error. It's about noob-friendly, to learn difference between bad and good rockets. And it's about quality of life for not-so-noobs, that can count all fuel tanks and get a slide rule, but why should they when it can be done by computer in millisecond.

So, SQUAD, please, add dV readout in stock. No need to make it correct for every situation, a simple display for simple staging is good. That will make game easier where it can be easier, and leave more player time to actually have fun making rockets and flying them where they want.

[Nich]

Ok if calculating DV is so easy give me the pseudo code that can calculate the DV of a craft with x stages y engines and z tanks.   Don't forget to account for thurst limiter and any engine can be used for any stage or stages

[Foxster]

As I said before, this has already been done successfully at least 3 times in different open-source mods, so no need to start this from scratch again. At the very least, these could be reverse engineered for the calculations, maybe even lifted in their entirety if the authors can be contacted and would agree.