I HATE Career Mode in v1.1.1!

[herbal space program]

1 hour ago, nosirrbro said:

*puts on hipster scarf*

I was hating career mode before it was cool!

In all seriousness though, I dislike it too but for different reasons. I personally play sandbox but put even more self imposed restrictions than career mode does, and make it more difficult. I find the tech tree broken, beginning boring, the obligatory contract grinding you need to do to afford missions horribly tedious and no fun whatsoever, and the whole thing annoying, restricting and unrealistic.

I think it works pretty well as a means of teaching noobs how to play the game, but once you reach a certain level of proficiency I agree that most of what you said is true. There were some fun challenges for me a least in early career though -- managing a Kerbal orbital  rescue with no target indicator and no maneuver nodes was IMO a worthwhile exercise in SOTP flying, for example. But that only lasts for one play-through. We can only hope that now that the physics model upgrade is (mostly) complete, the Devs will step up and provide some of this sorely lacking content.

Edited May 4, 2016 by herbal space program

[Scotius]

Well, days when you could fly a ship shaped like a box are gone (unless you are very good at KSP). Days when you could slam your ship into the atmosphere at 3000+ m\s and survive without preparations are gone too. Career mode and KSP as a whole got a bit harder, and slower. You can't faceroll through the system anymore - you will have to think, plan and tread lightly in many places. Many people love the challenge. Many are frustrated - but they are actively looking for sulutions to their problems, or asking other players for help. I hope you've noticed that there are not many posts like yours? Tone your anger down, ask right questions and let us help. It will work better than 'This stupid game SUXXXX!III11i1ii1!

[Enorats]

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by your boosters are being left behind. Maybe you attached them directly to the main stack instead of the decoupler? That seems most likely. I either that, or they're detaching and the aero forces are immediately slamming them into the side of your rocket and blowing it up. If that's the case be sure to place boosters to the "sides" of the rocket. That is, place them 90 degrees offset from the heading of your gravity turn. If you're launching out at a 90 degree heading (out over the sea) place boosters to either side of the rocket at 0 and 180 degrees. Any boosters placed at the "top" of the rocket will impact on release without several sepetrons to provide extra clearance. Again, by "top" I mean the part of the rocket facing the sky when you start turning.. the side facing a 270 degree heading on the launch pad, provided you're launching to 90 degrees (the sea).

[herbal space program]

21 minutes ago, Enorats said:

...either that, or they're detaching and the aero forces are immediately slamming them into the side of your rocket and blowing it up. If that's the case be sure to place boosters to the "sides" of the rocket. That is, place them 90 degrees offset from the heading of your gravity turn. If you're launching out at a 90 degree heading (out over the sea) place boosters to either side of the rocket at 0 and 180 degrees. Any boosters placed at the "top" of the rocket will impact on release without several sepetrons to provide extra clearance. Again, by "top" I mean the part of the rocket facing the sky when you start turning.. the side facing a 270 degree heading on the launch pad, provided you're launching to 90 degrees (the sea).

Proper placement of both the decoupler (just above COM of the side booster) and the stabilizing strut (near the top) help a lot with this also. Also too, instead of using Sepratrons you can just impart a little rotation to your stack just before hitting the staging button. I've found that this throws my boosters clear pretty well.

[Curveball Anders]

3 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

Also too, instead of using Sepratrons you can just impart a little rotation to your stack just before hitting the staging button. I've found that this throws my boosters clear pretty well.

That's plain nasty! Think of the poor kerbonauts being blasted off to space in a bleeping spin dryer!

But it works, and they where green in the face already when hired ...

[steve_v]

3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

That's plain nasty! Think of the poor kerbonauts being blasted off to space in a bleeping spin dryer!

You think that's mean, I have been known to spin-stabilise early career lifters all the way up Since one doesn't get usefull probe cores until later on... Vomit Rocket it is.

[Enorats]

Now I have to rush home and try putting fins on my rockets that are angled slightly like the fletching on my arrows. Wonder whether or not ksp will actually make them spin like they should.

If so.. I'm curious how fast I can get one spinning too..

Edited May 4, 2016 by Enorats

[razark]

13 minutes ago, Enorats said:

Wonder whether or not ksp will actually make them spin like they should.

In my experience, yes.

[Snark]

7 hours ago, Snark said:

Squad is definitely mindful that this is a game, and has put in lots of simplifications to make it playable.  If you wanted actual realism, try installing mods like FAR (more realistic aero), Realism Overhaul & RealFuels (more realistic rocket engines and rocket physics), Real Solar System (realistic scale for heavenly bodies).  Do all that and KSP gets stupefyingly harder.

 

6 hours ago, regex said:

This assertion is entirely subjective, please stop trying to scare people off with gross exaggerations.

I'm sorry if you misread what I said, or if I wasn't clear enough.  I certainly wasn't "trying to scare people off" of anything.

There's a spectrum of design, from "video game" at one end to "hardcore simulator" at the other.  KSP falls somewhere in the middle, though farther towards the "simulator" end than most computer games.  The OP was contending that KSP is badly designed, for being way too far at the "simulator" end, and asserted that the design should aim to less realistic and more video-gamey.

My point was simply that moving KSP in that direction would likely not be a super popular idea in the KSP community.  As an illustration of that, I pointed out these mods, whose entire premise is that the game should be more realistic and less video-gamey.  As challenging for some folks as stock KSP is... there are plenty of other folks who think it's not challenging enough.  Those various realism mods-- which are enormously popular-- are there precisely because they do add challenge that many people find interesting and stimulating.  They do make things more realistic, it's the whole point of the mods.

And yes, they generally make things harder.  That's not a particularly subjective statement, and indeed that's a big part of what makes the mods fun for their many users.

As for "stupefyingly" -- well, yes, that's a subjective statement, but I think appropriate in context.  I was addressing the OP, who appears (from his post) to find even stock KSP with > 1.0 aero to be rage-inducingly, impossibly hard.  I think it's a reasonable assumption that to a person in such a situation, adding all those mods would be something he would find stupefyingly harder.  And there are plenty of people who like the game at that level.

[HMIC]

@TimKerbin We need to see what you bulit, how you are flying it, staging, ascent profile, design, etc.  Been playing since KSP went live on steam (0.24?).   The only explanation for your problems is that you are comming from a previous version before 1.0 when the aerodynamics changed, all the way to 1.1.1. This is the only conclusion I can see here.

Radial decouplers require A LOT OF TWEAKING (yes, the bold and underline expresses the  amount of work needed to get them just right for your design during ascent), you will explode or mess up multiple times, GUARANTEED!! The new aerodynamics for the vast mayority make the game more fun, not annoying or to the point of rage.  If this is a problem, you can tweak the config files to remove the aeroddynamics and physics a bit or a lot if you wish.  It's just a matter of reading, viewing videos and learning in the process.

This is about all I can say, we cannot fix everything in the game or make the experience better for you.  Mortal and insignificant players like me can only comment and help you make this experience better.  That's why we have this forum

Edited May 4, 2016 by HMIC

[regex]

1 minute ago, Snark said:

I'm sorry if you misread what I said, or if I wasn't clear enough.  I certainly wasn't "trying to scare people off" of anything.

I didn't misread anything.  You claimed adding the Realism Overhaul mods would make the game "stupefyingly harder", which is a gross exaggeration at best.  Continually reinforcing such exaggerations, even if you think the context is appropriate, is akin to claiming science is witchcraft.

All one needs to do is learn how to play those mods, same as learning how to play KSP itself.  If you don't want sim level detail you don't have to have it, but don't make those of us who enjoy that out to be practitioners of some dark magic.  Realism Overhaul isn't harder, it just requires learning more and paying more attention to detail.

[Vanamonde]

This discussion is all over the map. Realism mods, game (not ship) crashes, and a number of other things dragged into the discussion do not address OP's post. Please dial back the tempers, and stick to the subject. 

[Sandworm]

The OP is probably the first person I've seen who's opinion on career mode actually changed with 1.1.   Most everyone I talk to has hated career mode, at least the contracts side, from day one.  For me it was hour one, minutes after I appreciated the idiocy of hardcoded procedural contracts.  But other people seem to love the grind (mobile gamers?).  So to see someone whose opinions has changed only recently is novel.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Sandworm

[steve_v]

7 hours ago, Sandworm said:

Most everyone I talk to has hated career mode, at least the contracts side, from day one. For me it was hour one, minutes after I appreciated the idiocy of hardcoded procedural contracts.

Count me among them, though I wouldn't say "Hate" - more "Meh, this is pretty uninspiring." I was slightly disappointed, though not at all surprised, that 1.1 hasn't improved this.
Stock contracts are just based on a fundamentally flawed concept IMO. I believe it was Regex who recently said something like: "Squad has saddled themselves with a side-quest system." I agree, and I don't find it particularly fun. It feels too much like work, and the goals aren't remotely interesting. Done one part test, done them all. Plant another flag somewhere on the Mun... Why?

Some people seem to enjoy the grind, but for me career mode is exceedingly boring and repetitive without a heap of career mods and contract packs. Most of them are so much better than stock, it can actually make career a fairly enjoyable experience. Nightingales Strategia, for example, gives a sense of long-term planning and progression sorely missing in the base game, and there are several others that have a similar effect - bringing some management to managing a space program.

As for the OP... I can't really make heads nor tails of it, so: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited May 5, 2016 by steve_v

[Pecan]

Surely the simple solution to problems with 1.1.1 is 1.1.2.  How comes no-one has mentioned this?

[Guest]

Tone down realism......seriously. Try Orbiter TimKerbin

[Gojira1000]

The measure of the difficulty of a game is always going to be subjective - This thread is a bit like watching people argue whether a given taco is "too spicy".

It's all down to taste, and only the individual can determine if it works for them.

</dismount soap-box>

[NikkyD]

OP states that he is a veteran and has been to every body in the system and now suddenly with more realistic aero he can't even get into orbit. There is just too much contradiction in this to take it seriously.

Edited May 5, 2016 by NikkyD

[kinnison]

It got harder.  Get gud

Used to be I could do Aerobraking without worrying about anything.  Now I have to design return vehicles for  Aerobraking to save a few hundred Delta-V.  I also have to spend a few hundred more Delta-V on ascent or risk having my booster do a barrel roll.

the game changes and you have to change with it

[Wallygator]

There is not enough coherent elements to career mode that rates it high enough for me to hate it. It is bland and un-engaging in my opinion. However, it is playable... Many players actually enjoy it for their own reasons  

And to the comment regarding Ph.D. requirements to play ksp in general I might suggest here that there are likely some PhDs who could play the game blindfolded so-to-speak, and there may be others who can't figure out how to properly wear a blind fold. Level of education does not always equate to capability. 

Complaining with a craft file or a pic is actually asking for active help. Complaining without providing a craft file or pic is sadly just complaining

Also ksp auto saves, I think you'll be fine

 

[Pecan]

Just now, Wallygator said:

...And to the comment regarding Ph.D. requirements to play ksp in general I might suggest here that there are likely some PhDs who could play the game blindfolded so-to-speak, and there may be others who can't figure out how to properly wear a blind fold. Level of education does not always equate to capability...

I can confirm that I have not benefited from my Philosophy Phd, nor my prior Masters in PPE.  It is possible that my other Masters, in Computing, has helped and I think my navigation quailifications (land, sea and air) and experience were definitely useful.  Yes, I am laughing.  There are of course people here whose qualifications are directly relevant to aerospace but I had the luxury of studying what I was interested in once the Computing paid for everything else :-)

[regex]

2 hours ago, Wallygator said:

And to the comment regarding Ph.D. requirements to play ksp in general I might suggest here that there are likely some PhDs who could play the game blindfolded so-to-speak, and there may be others who can't figure out how to properly wear a blind fold. Level of education does not always equate to capability. 

Nah, that's just a general gripe about "I HAVE TO LEARN SO MUCH TO PLAY".  Of course you do.  Ever tried a Paradox Interactive game?

If you want to get good at something you have to be open to learning and making mistakes in the process.

[severedsolo]

On 04/05/2016 at 0:12 PM, TimKerbin said:

But Career Mode in 1.1.1 makes me feel
like  a stupid noob, and I hate it. I can't even get a friggin ship into escape velocity for
one simple mission. The aerodynamics make this damn game impossible.

Um.... are you aware that the game has two other modes? One of which is your "real career" mode - aka Science Mode. So, you haven't played since at least what 0.23 I guess? Either way the aerodynamics are not career modes fault. You'll get the same atmosphere whatever mode you play.

On 04/05/2016 at 0:12 PM, TimKerbin said:

They detach on their own leaving behind the empty tanks they
were attached to!

Then your boosters are not attached to your decoupler. Seriously. It's not the game. If we all had this issue do you not think we would be shouting about it? I also suspect your staging is messed up if they are detaching "on their own."

 

[Sereneti]

I have build a smal orbiter, in the new carer-mode...

I can give you my craft files, if you want...

a smal "space Taxi" for 6 People...

a smal "space-lift" for a smal probe (1,75 tonns)

both flyer hav (some) more DV that are needet to reach orbit and go back,
you can add more payload to the space-lift, i waste some DV because i dont use the "sweet zone" very well, and drop always some fuel with the tank...

(i like deployable tanks..., that looks cool, less weithgt to orbit , and less weight to break on the deorbiting)

if you need that....

[Wallygator]

4 hours ago, regex said:

Nah, that's just a general gripe about "I HAVE TO LEARN SO MUCH TO PLAY".  Of course you do.  Ever tried a Paradox Interactive game?

If you want to get good at something you have to be open to learning and making mistakes in the process.

Yup.