What parts do you find especially unrealistic

[p1t1o]

24 minutes ago, Vaporized Steel said:

The Kerbals also have infinite Electric charge, if not, tell me when those headlights go out, because they haven't failed yet.

This one is easy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobattery

They're just plugged into the Kerbal's bloodstream

[Vaporized Steel]

50 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

This one is easy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobattery

They're just plugged into the Kerbal's bloodstream

 

Hey, yeah I read about the technology once. We can only assume that kerbals are further in some types of technologies compared to humans since they have so far manufactured this. One mystery solved

[MacLeod-Industries]

On 6/14/2016 at 5:12 AM, MircoMars said:

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.

I really like this feature. Docking is normally done be amazing computer programs... However since you have an actual human being doing this, you had to make a compromise.

On 6/14/2016 at 5:15 AM, mk1980 said:

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.

ISRU is very unrealistic. Mining enough material with those tiny drills and then easily turning it into fuel isn't as easy as they make it look. The only other alternative is setting up a bunch of orbital refueling stations around planets... (Which I find isn't a terrible idea. I am considering doing a play-through without ISRU once I am really good at docking).

The RAPIER engines we are actually close to (unlike KSP quality ISRU) and we are pretty sure that it will work. Skylon, the space plane it is going to be made for, is set to be used 2025.

[kBob]

21 hours ago, Brownhair2 said:

1. What do the Mk1 Command Pod, the Mk 1-2 Command pod and the Mk 2 Cockpit all have in common? Non-Euclidean IVAs! Wouldn't even be that hard to fix, they're not that much larger on the inside...

I hadn't noticed this, maybe this means a Timelord visited them and left behind a bit of their TARDIS technology.

[MacLeod-Industries]

2 minutes ago, kBob said:

I hadn't noticed this, maybe this means a Timelord visited them and left behind a bit of their TARDIS technology.

So they truly are ore advanced!

No wonder they can revert flights effortlessly!

Edited July 7, 2016 by MacLeod-Industries

[regex]

21 hours ago, Corona688 said:

You could say that "mineral" is one of the most common in the universe -- water.  Nothing but pure fuel and pure oxidizer in perfect proportions.

Unfortunately, that doesn't fly for several reasons.

1. Liquid fuel and oxidizer have the specific heat values of Aerozine50 and dinitrogen tetroxide respectively.

2. All rocket engines are based on the assumption that they burn the realistic fuels above and have isps that correspond to the theoretical maxima of those fuels.

3. Liquid fuel and oxidizer are infinitely storable, much like the realistic fuels their hsp is modeled after (the realistic ones are a bit less than "infinitely" storable, but that's academic).

4. Liquid fuel and oxidizer engines are infinitely restartable and incredibly deep-throttling, which is a bit easier to accomplish with hypergolic fuels (reference the LEM).

So basically "Ore" is a resource that can produce two very complex hypergolic molecules (and your monoprop is a component of Aerozine 50, hydrazine).  Knowing the guy who helped rebalance engines for 1.x, if we had been able to quantify the volume units that KSP nebulously assigns LFO would have been adjusted to match the density of those two fuels respectively (and monoprop as well).  But that would have caused some major tears.

[Corona688]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Unfortunately, that doesn't fly for several reasons.

1. Liquid fuel and oxidizer have the specific heat values of Aerozine50 and dinitrogen tetroxide respectively.

,,,wow, that really puts paid to that mod which "realistically" makes your fuel disperse into space.

OTOH, I remember HarvestR considering adding cryogenic haze effects to liquid fuel tanks on the pad.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

,,,wow, that really puts paid to that mod which "realistically" makes your fuel disperse into space.

Which mod is that?  CryoEngines?  CryoEngines uses realistic fuels from CRP.  Furthermore, it's a mod so it can't exactly be considered canon.

Quote

OTOH, I remember HarvestR considering adding cryogenic haze effects to liquid fuel tanks on the pad.

[citation needed]

Edited July 7, 2016 by regex

[Corona688]

I remember coming to #kspofficial IRC to ask about some issue or other and loitering for the conversation.  Everyone was watching NASA TV with another Atlas V ready for liftoff in a few minutes, HarvestR admired the stream of cryogenic mist off the oxygen tank, wondering whether he should add "a little particle source" to liquid fuel tanks to imitate it.

Looking at the list of Atlas launches, and checking the date of my screenshots around that time, that could well have been Landsat 8, 2013-02-11, 18:02 UTC.

That's the best I can do for citation, sorry.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Corona688

[The Optimist]

22 hours ago, Firemetal said:

Rapier engines don't yet exist. There real life counterpart is the Sabre engine which is still in development for the Skylon but those bad boys are as expensive as hell. So basically the Rapier is the concept of the Sabre which could change in the future so this is potentially unrealistic? Idk. I like the rapier engines just like the rest of the SSTO building community does.

Kerbals are not humans.

[Firemetal]

7 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

Kerbals are not humans.

Wat m8?

[The Optimist]

2 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Wat m8?

They might have an engine that shares parallels with our SABRE engine, but it isn't the same thing

[Firemetal]

2 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

They might have an engine that shares parallels with our SABRE engine, but it isn't the same thing

Alright then. You have a point.

All the parts are pretty realistic but the nozzles need some work.

[The Optimist]

1 minute ago, Firemetal said:

Alright then. You have a point.

All the parts are pretty realistic but the nozzles need some work.

It's strange how all the vacuum-efficient engines have tiny bells

[Firemetal]

1 minute ago, The Optimist said:

It's strange how all the vacuum-efficient engines have tiny bells

Yup.

 

[lasersword]

On 14.6.2016 at 11:18 AM, Vaporized Steel said:

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.
 

I just wanted to say that afaik people die from Gforces because they don't have enough blood in the head. Kerbals have a head with at least 60% of their body volume. Plus their Legs are barely existent, also you don't know much about their anatomy. 

[Wallygator]

Fuel cell behavior. Uncontrollable. 

[SyzygyΣE]

This isn't the most unrealistic part we've mentioned, but I'm not sure whether a solar system like the stock system can actually exist in the sense that it could be stable. If we could generate that system in real life, would gravitational forces from various objects disturb each other and cause everything to break down? Would something just go horribly wrong? The game uses locked orbits and spheres of influence so this isn't a problem, but if we could make the celestial bodies have dynamic orbits and then induce n-body simulations or something, I'm really interested to see the result.

As for parts, I don't think real engines throttle down as far as stock engines. You can't just say "I want to cut the throttle to 0.1%" and expect it to do that on many rocket engines. Some rocket engines are throttle-able, but from what I know virtually none are as flexible as stock engines.

Edited July 8, 2016 by SyzygyΣE

[Xyphos]

Fuel Ducts. you get to squeeze unlimited amounts of propelants through a flexible garden hose without any flow restriction, they pass through it mixed and then come out the other end separated again.

also, requiring struts to hold everything together; struts once had more drag than a drogue parachute. usually my vessels start around 80 parts total and then come out to 260+ parts after adding all the f***ing struts. KSP joint system is a f***ing joke, except nobody's laughing. there's absolutely no reason to have a flying ball of struts, which is why I insist that KJR is required to play this darn game.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Xyphos

[suicidejunkie]

3 hours ago, Wallygator said:

Fuel cell behavior. Uncontrollable. 

I have done some science to it recently.

The 50% EC cap is based on ONE of your energy-storing devices aboard the ship, not the total EC.  Also, only unlocked EC is considered.  Which exact battery is chosen for what reason, I do not know.

For optimal automatic fuel cell operation:

1. Avoid mixing battery types, and lean towards a small number of large batteries.
2. Lock all EC storage with lower capacity than your main battery.  (Murphy's law says the fuel cell will pick the worst battery to pay attention to, but it isn't allowed to look at locked batteries)
3. Mod the cap % down to about 20% (>10% to avoid Lifesupport alarms, but small to avoid burning LFO unnecessarily)

For practical example:

1. You start with a z100 and a z4k battery on the ship, both fully charged.
2. You spend 110ec transmitting science.  You now have batteries with 45/100 and 3945/4000
3. Murphy's law says that the fuel cell will pay attention to the smaller battery, which is at 45%.  The fuel cell turns on almost immediately.

 

1. You start with a z100 (drained/locked) and two z4k batteries (unlocked), fully charged.
2. You spend 3900ec doing mad science.  You now have batteries with 0/100 and 2050/4000 and 2050/4000
3. The fuel cell avoids the z100 since it is locked, and sees the z4k batteries >50%.  The fuel cell remains off.
4. Spend 200ec more, and the 4k cells drop below 50%, turning the fuel cell on.

 

[Tyko]

On 7/7/2016 at 5:06 AM, p1t1o said:

This one is easy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobattery

They're just plugged into the Kerbal's bloodstream

How very "Matrix" of the Kerbals...haha

[magnemoe]

23 hours ago, Firemetal said:

Alright then. You have a point.

All the parts are pretty realistic but the nozzles need some work.

Yes air flow is an serious issue in RL, non existing in ksp. And yes hypersonic air stream is hard to handle, way harder than crossfeed 

[Bill Phil]

On July 6, 2016 at 5:01 PM, String Witch said:

Much of the late tech in KSP is 60-70s in reality though, no? All the Apollo style missions I've seen done in KSP use the 3.75m rocket parts for the Saturn V, and SSME on every stage. And given their placement in the tree I was surprised to learn that the Voyagers carry RTGs.

I mean very early 60s.

[kBob]

5 hours ago, SyzygyΣE said:

This isn't the most unrealistic part we've mentioned, but I'm not sure whether a solar system like the stock system can actually exist in the sense that it could be stable.

Actually I wonder about this too.  Of course we now know the Alpha Centrari system probably has at least one planet and there are three suns in that system.   And planets have been detected in other binary systems, so if they can exist in harmony there maybe the Kerbol system can function.   But Kerbin itself is 1/4 the size of Earth with the same gravity (strange coincidence that  ) so it must be pretty darn dense not sure what if any consequences that has but it makes me wonder about things like magnetic fields.  Of course the Jupiter system is quite complex yet seems fairly stable so I just don't know, astrophysics is not my fort.  Might be a good question for the science forum see what those in the know think.

I've also wondered about those 100% reliable throttles.  Every time I go to a satellite that's been parked for a long time I think, no way is it going to throttle up, yet it does, Kerbol technology is pretty amazing in some areas.

[regex]

1 hour ago, kBob said:

But Kerbin itself is 1/4 the size of Earth with the same gravity

Actually roughly 1/10th the size of Earth.