What parts do you find especially unrealistic

[kBob]

I know reaction wheels are commonly cited (they seem to be able to change direction rather quickly).  Just wondering what other parts you might consider very unrealistic (for breaking or bending physics or because they are speculative or whatever) and maybe even try to avoid using because of this?

 

Edit: I'm not concerned about game balance, game play etc. just want to know any opinions especially on parts that seem really far out.

Edited June 14, 2016 by kBob

[samstarman5]

Just going to give fair warning that many players accept that KSP is a game and has everything working their own way in this universe. Some of them do feel a bit tired of those who are all about the realism. KSP, while it is a fantastic primer on rocket function, ballistic flight, and orbital physics, is still just a game for fun and enjoyment, and not an actual simulator.  If you came into it expecting realism, welcome to the other side.

[kBob]

@samstarman5 Woah, I use all the parts.  I'm just curios, these come up in various discussion and I'd just like to know what people think of some of the various parts.  Of course it's a game but that doesn't mean there isn't room for all view points.  If you aren't interested nobody is forcing you to read this thread :).

[DaMachinator]

Well, I like mods that let me do unmanned spacecraft and manned aircraft before manned spacecraft.  

It's not the stock parts, it's the way stock does certain things.

[regex]

Pretty much every part is unrealistic in one way or another.  Most are simply far too massive for what they do.  This is needed because KSP's tiny, unrealistically dense solar system needs something that the real world doesn't give a single damn about: game balance.

1 hour ago, samstarman5 said:

Some of them do feel a bit tired of those who are all about the realism.

Everyone here has a right to express their opinion so ... deal with it.

[Snark]

1 hour ago, kBob said:

I know reaction wheels are commonly cited (they seem to be able to change direction rather quickly).

Well, the reason that they're cited is not that "they're too effective" (though they are)... it's that what they do is physically impossible.  They break the laws of physics (specifically, conservation of angular momentum).

I'm not complaining, mind you, because I strongly believe that this is one case where gameplay needs to trump realism.  Modeling them in a physically realistic way would make them really confusing and un-fun for the typical player, and IMHO wouldn't really add anything useful to gameplay.  I think Squad totally made the right call, here.

KSP ion drives are also highly unrealistic-- their thrust is thousands of times too powerful.  But, again, it's a gameplay thing:  if they actually modeled them realistically, the burn times would be so long as to make them unplayable.  I'm glad that they're in the game-- as a fun design challenge around "it's a thing that gives really high Isp at the cost of extremely low thrust"-- which gets the basic idea of ion engines, even if it plays fast and loose with the numbers.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, too, but honestly I just don't have the interest in picking it apart (despite being a physics major).  KSP's just too much fun for me, I think Squad made the right realism/playability choices, and I'm happy with it. 

[LordFerret]

18 minutes ago, Snark said:

... if they actually modeled them realistically, the burn times would be so long as to make them unplayable.

Hey wait a minute, the burn times actually are really long. lol

[kBob]

Again I'm not complaining about them just wondering what people think about certain parts in this context.  So we really don't need the qualifications about game play vs realism that's a given, from now on that is assumed .  Thanks though @Snark  that's the kind of info I was looking for.  It's hard to keep all the various things people say in separate threads in mind so I was hopping to gather some of them here.

[Snark]

9 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Hey wait a minute, the burn times actually are really long. lol

Yes, and imagine if they actually were literally several thousand times longer than they are now.  Really not playable.

[magnemoe]

The ion engines is well known and for gameplay reasons. 
I react a bit in that the smaller vacum engines are too small to be realistic. The poodle is worst here, realistically it should have an engine bell more like the mainsail, yes its probably to make it an better lander engine. 

Worst for me is that you can run an mining and refining operation powered by an fuel cell using part of the fuel and oxidizer you produce to power this. 
Yes its impossible, and yes I know you usually power oil and gass extraction using part of the gas for power but this only work in an oxygen atmosphere, if not you have to use energy to crack water or hydrocarbons into fuel and oxidizer. 

[Overland]

A race of green people dedicated thier entire lives to thier space program...not only space program but one could say thier entire reason for living,

Numerous and seemingly unlimited in number for years despite the female of the species only recently immerging from large door in the vehicle assembly hanger ( and dying shortly after)

They have lidless eyes..eternal in thier stare fixated on space. No nose to speak of..and a lipless mouth of which to silently scream

Below the neck things resemble a lifeform thats more at home pulling sunday roasts out of hot ovens..born with oven mits.. Vs something capable of spaceflight and vehicle construction..

Infact thier home world bares witness to this being an untouched unblemished surface by the mits of the forementioned roasters and bakers

Thier aim is just as confusing..

 

Colonising other worlds.. When kerbin itself is an empty undeveloped echoing shell..

 

Upon futher study though...

 

Perhaps because kerbin has sand..dirt..light..and wind...the enemy of those without eyelids.. They chose to exist in capsules..cockpits and landers.. 

Forever in search of simply..sleep in the blackness of space..and a contained enviroment without deadly sand and dirt.. Or the more life ending fatal..

 

Hay fever.. Without eyelids to close.. And noses to sneeze... 

They explode into a grey dust cloud..

 

Unrealistic?

You decide

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Overland

[MircoMars]

5 hours ago, regex said:

something that the real world doesn't give a single damn about: game balance.

Yeah, we should really call the devs to nerf radiation damage and buff tolerance to gravity changes! this is game breaking, like they never thought about a late game. if they don't change that I'll go play something else! graphics are still outstanding, but not everything! and please add savegames...

OT: magnetic docking ports, really practical in-game, but totally unrealistic. in RL they have to be spot on, in line and pretty slow for docking. we'd need a lot of stuff (i.e. docking alignment indicators, more precise spacecraft controls, hours of RL time approaching) to pull a "real docking" off consistently and without hundreds of failed attempts. chasing the docking port until both crafts wobble in place is ... appropriately kerbal.

[mk1980]

ISRU seems a bit over the top. i'm not really sure if it's *unrealistic* since i have no clue how real ISRU is supposed to work, but i guess the converters would be a lot less efficient and heavier? (i may be totally wrong here).

also, the nuke engines seem a bit unrealistic to me. as far as i know, they were never actually used in real life, so having working nuke engines in the game seems a bit weird, especially since they are placed on a fairly cheap research node. i could see them as some sort of "near future" tech similar to the rapier engines, but then they'd have to be on a 1000 tech node and require the fully upgraded R&D to unlock.

but maybe that's just me.

[Vaporized Steel]

All and every part by default.

1:because it's a game and only simulates realism in a few areas. (I'm not bothered by this, else I wouldn't play the game)
2:Every value is scaled up or down based on the dimensions of the Kerbin Solar system.

My main problem is the simulation of structural strength and prolonged exposure to excessive G forces without killing the crew as long as a certain limit is not reached. Although it is good we have deadly re-entry for some time already. Still I find the G tolerance for Kerbals to large, way beyond human tolerance. Even with a 5 through 10G limit where 5G's can be survived indefinitely (still unrealistic) still means very reasonable burn times.
Excessive G forces can break a rocket apart, especially when sideward torque is added. Structural joints will fail easily in these conditions, which is a good realistic simulation attempt as far as constructional realism goes.
Max G exposures are limited IRL for astronaut health and structural limits. Yet I found out that a Kerbal can survive excessive G forces, and when they're limited to a certain amount of G force they can survive it indefinitely.
Structural parts (including fuel tanks) have impact tolerance. But under excessive G force they only seem to fail if sideward torque is introduced. And then it are the joints that fail, not the parts themselves.
Last time I checked metal alloys have physical strength limits, *cough* any material does. Even without sideways torque (assuming a rocket goes straight up)  a part should have a "G tolerance"
And if there is a weak link attaching one stage to another which then carries a significant load of the rockets total weight a rocket should actually disintegrate on the launch pad.
In KSP, you just add struts, who seem to work more like dampeners. If you want real physical construction with the use of I-beams or girders then you can't strengthen 2 seperate stages because there is no way to attach girder segments to 2 individual attachment parts and I don't think it can even be implemented. And even if that is possible it probably involves some very technical workarounds in the VAB/SPH, and has yet no known methodical procedure for each and every player to work with.

The structural parts that are loading the most G forces, which during a launch should usually be the lowest part of the rocket should fail, causing the engines or fuel tanks to blow up or fly freely and destroy the rest of the rocket.
I'm a real strut hater, Even although struts are used they don't seem to replicate a realistic attempt at simulating constructional realism. Sure they have real use in rocketry, but it only serves a limited aspect to construction. And since they only add parts and thus lower framerate I am a real Kerbal joint reinforcement fan. Construction of a rocket is one of the main aims of the game, and the most exclusive and fun part of KSP. You cannot however in your right mind consider it realistic, and involving constructional realism in KSP seems impossible to my knowledge. This is no problem when you work with a modded ksp where you use specifically modded rocket parts and stages. Where each and every joing is optimized for each 1st/2nd stage tank, fairing base and/or payload bay. These mods mods don't simulate G tolerance because it's not a function of KSP as of yet.

EDIT: Regarding a idea of added constructional implementation in ksp stock or modded. We have KIS and KAS. Kerbals can drag fuel lines from a part attachment to another part.

Wouldn't it be a cool idea for squad to introduce constructional attachment point parts. This way you can add attachment points on stages within the VAB/SPH and you can then add beams or girders on a attachment point. A procedural drag and drop function like you would do with a fairing will then allow you to reattach the other end of a constructional beam to a attachment part added to another stage.
As long as we are limited to certain size tanks and parts in stock and tanks and fairing bases are not procedural in stock gameplay it seems a nice addition to the use of struts only. That in combination with a G tolerance model ofcourse.
 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[kBob]

@vaporizedsteel interesting thoughts on the g-force effect on parts.  I've seen various comments on the struts, one thing I've read is that if the parts connected on their outer rims rather than a central point they would therefore be stronger which makes sense (more surface area connecting at the least), don't know if that would be difficult to implement but if it could I'd think that would help with reducing strut need (and I'm no physics or engineering guy my major was math/comp sci so I may be off here one of the reasons I was asking my original question ).

29 minutes ago, MircoMars said:

...

OT: magnetic docking ports, really practical in-game, but totally unrealistic. in RL they have to be spot on, in line and pretty slow for docking. we'd need a lot of stuff (i.e. docking alignment indicators, more precise spacecraft controls, hours of RL time approaching) to pull a "real docking" off consistently and without hundreds of failed attempts. chasing the docking port until both crafts wobble in place is ... appropriately kerbal.

Makes sense even in my Surface Pro the magnetic power connection is a real pain to get aligned right.

[TheBeardyMan]

Reaction wheels. Not for the quantity of torque that they can produce, but for their ability to counter external sources of torque (e.g. aerodynamic forces) without accumulating spin and melting their bearings.

[DarkGravity]

Scott Manley. Most unrealistic thing in this game by far.

Actually I find parachutes highly unrealistic. The way they never tangle with each other even if the craft has 2 chutes and is spinning. The way the ropes pass through space craft parts is just a little easier than what NASA and ESA have to cope with.

Edited June 14, 2016 by DarkGravity

[X-SR71]

The ISRU. I use it in all my interplanetary crafts. It's great but I do feel it gives an unfair advantage. I mean, extract ore from practically anywhere and fill up the tank? It's so good that I can't find myself not using it!

[Tw1]

13 minutes ago, TheBeardyMan said:

Reaction wheels. Not for the quantity of torque that they can produce, but for their ability to counter external sources of torque (e.g. aerodynamic forces) without accumulating spin and melting their bearings.

Yes. There's a difference between something being scaled up and simplified for gameplay purposes, and something that's defying physics all together. 

The Rapier engines arguably also fall into this category, they are tiny, and don't require any of the complex precooling rl equivalents do. 

1 hour ago, mk1980 said:

also, the nuke engines seem a bit unrealistic to me. as far as i know, they were never actually used in real life, so having working nuke engines in the game seems a bit weird, especially since they are placed on a fairly cheap research node. 

They were never used due to budget cuts when the space race ended, and the anti nuclear movement. They're as much retro- future as they are near future.

They are also not completely realistic, iicr they would require warm up and warm down times, with thrust proportional to heat.

[solarbearman]

The vector nozzle engine. They are too powerful for a 1.25 m engine, and there is no combustion chamber in the "engine".

[monstah]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Worst for me is that you can run an mining and refining operation powered by an fuel cell using part of the fuel and oxidizer you produce to power this. 
Yes its impossible, and yes I know you usually power oil and gass extraction using part of the gas for power but this only work in an oxygen atmosphere, if not you have to use energy to crack water or hydrocarbons into fuel and oxidizer. 

I would like to agree, and also add that the very fact that we have hydrocarbons in the first place means there is stored energy to be used. Sure there are hydrocarbons in Titan and even Pluto, but they aren't nearly as ubiquitous and versatile as 'Ore'.

[cantab]

The cubic octagonal strut. It's usually used as basically glue for which it's fine, but when you start building structures you get something that's exceptionally strong and light. I can support a 40 ton spaceship on four legs made of cubic octags weighing just a few kilos each.

[KerikBalm]

Unsaturatable reaction wheels: really weak reaction wheels would be a gameplay bore like ion enegines, but their ability to counter significant thrust imbalance indefinitely is unrealistic and renders RCS for direction control entirely redundant.
 Sadly, due to rotation being killed and not stored when a craft is place on rails, its sort of a neccessity.

Ion drives too much thrust, a result of a gameplay neccessity (on rails thrusting would need to be allowed, then they can nerf thrust 1000x)

ISRU: just feels to light, compact, and cheaty. Much more dedicated, massive, and bulky equipment should be needed in most cases.. not the uniquitous "ore" and a drill of a few meters.

However, atmospheric processing for ISRU wouldn't be so bad

infinite restart deep throttling engines

Turboramjets, panthers and rapiers... not in terms of mach number, but in terms of % of orbital velocity that they can attain (because KSP dV requirements are about 1/3 of real values, these are breathers get far far far too close to orbital velocity)... also their Isp is too high

All Isps are proportionately too high given the mini system and its reduced dV requirements

Either the LVN's ISP is too high, or the LF tanks are unrealistic... because it would only get that Isp with H2 (assuming its comparable to the NERVA), and the tanks have no boiloff, and actually have good mass ratios for an LH2 tank (but relative to other tanks, they suck). Also its lack of warm up/cool down cycles, and the lack of deadly radiation

Kerbals/crew pods... life support is irrelevant?

Claws... even worse than docking ports

 

Celestial bodies aren't parts but.... all of them are too dense... Eve's gravity seems too high especially.

Val and bop orbits are unstable.

Tylo, Laythe, and probably Val are unrealistically big compared to their gas giant.

[Xavven]

The worst offenders in order of un-realism IMHO:

1. The starter Mk-1 black capsule has enough life support for a Kerbal to last a 10 year mission in space (technically infinite time).
2. Reaction wheels can be used to steer a rocket or plane in atmospheric flight and they never accumulate momentum.
3. Engine bells are strong enough to support the weight of a 1000 ton booster.
4. Mk-1 capsule magically has enough cockpit visibility for a Kerbal to pilot a lander and flawlessly land it on the Mun if the "player" uses a standard (non-IVA) view.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Xavven
Added #4

[GarrisonChisholm]

6 hours ago, Overland said:

Hay fever.. Without eyelids to close.. And noses to sneeze... 

They explode into a grey dust cloud..

 

 

..this is poetry.