Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

[Just Jim]

18 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Wait, how the hell am I supposed to know if this is going to space or not???

OK... first off, this is just my opinion... I totally respect other players may disagree.

But this sentence right here is exactly the reason I DON'T want it added into the stock game, at least without an off/on toggle in the settings, and I will scream bloody-murder if they implement it.

See, I don't want to know ahead if a rocket is going to work or not... where's the fun in that??? If I knew before even launching that a ship has enough fuel, then you totally lost that excited/scared feeling of landing on fumes, and not knowing if you're going to make it or not... or get into orbit or not... or anything for that matter. Knowing all that before you even hit the launch pad is... again, my own opinion... super-cheating. Why not turn on infinite fuel and be done with it?

No... I absolutely do NOT want to know if something is going to work before even putting on the launch pad... For me, this would totally kill the spirit of the game... and of being an explody-loving Kerbal. 

This has been my 15 second op-ed piece... I'll see myself out now.  

Edited March 17, 2018 by Just Jim

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

6 hours ago, MaximumThrust said:

One of the many reasons people stop playing the game really quick, most of them without going interplanetary.

I understand all the fun and accomplishment in building the rockets be eye, only guessing things, and making gruesome mistakes. But it's a very short-lived experience, that gets more boring and tiresome than fun very fast. Most people got this taste around the boom in popularity in 2015, and then abandoned the game.

 

I think a lot of things should be added in the stock game in this regard. If a significant number of people complains (which I doubt), simple make it toggleable in the settings menu.

It looks like that spike coincided with the official 1.0 release. That was when I bought the game as well. What that graph really shows is the power of advertising: in this case, the magic of the Steam ads the moment you log in. Graphs like that are probably hanging in every ad guy's office. Not to say that your assumption is incorrect. It probably is. But I think a graph for most games would look quite the same (except the huge, extremely popular multiplayer ones). I have dozens of games I've tried for a bit and moved on, or never even loaded at all. I suspect we all do. You try something, and maybe it's not your cup of tea. Or not quite what you thought. Or maybe you think you'll come back to it later and give it another shot. There are plenty of reasons to move on to something else.

To me, KSP is one of those games that either grabs you immediately (and won't let go), or not at all. Is there such a thing as a "casual" KSP player? I'm not so sure. It's sort of a way of life; bordering on obsession. If someone found the game too hard or not to their liking, I don't think seeing the numbers would help. But for someone who likes the game and wants to get better, more info would certainly help. As I said, I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it will be incorporated into the stock game anytime soon. And though it may be necessary for your enjoyment (depending on the player), it is not necessary for your success.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Kobymaru]

18 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

At this point I can just look at a rocket and guesstimate how much Dv it has. Unless it's really complicated or unusual.

How do you "guesstimate" a huge multi-stage launcher with several probes, transfer stages, side boosters and all engines with wildly varying burn times, ISP and TWR?

18 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

There is if you use an alternate procedure described here to advance missions instead of recovering vessels:

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Quote

The only math involved is simple multiplication, using information given by the stock game. The end result is a rocket with respectable TWR and known delta V. Complicated staging schemes would still need additional calculations, but it works well for Jebnik 1.

Interesting method, thanks.

 

15 hours ago, Gaarst said:

Give us information, give us data, tell use what we are doing. Rocket science is rocket science: it's numbers, it's math, it's engineering, all of which require accuracy and planning. I just don't find it fun when you have no idea if your rocket will make it back, when you have no idea if you are flying efficiently, when you have no idea if you will even reach your target (because at Squad, porkchop just means meat and window is something you look through); I much prefer planning my mission thoroughly, having the tools to execute it precisely and if something goes wrong well it's okay because I was able to plan for contingencies as well.

Yes, manually calculating dV is easy and makes you work your math, great right? No! Because that's why we have calculators/computers for, unless you can't use yours you can't get it wrong: it's not an element of difficulty, it's just time-consuming and tedious. Difficulty should lie in being able to design and build your rocket properly for a mission, not in being able to find the natural logarithm on your calculator every time you take a part off.

Not giving the information we need for a mission is literally dumbing down the game (I know what "literally" means and I mean it) and making it harder at the same time, which is quite the achievement. Matching numbers is easier than trial and error, it's also miles less frustrating; and if you want to up your level of gameplay you'll have to understand these numbers anyway.

Really great summary of what bugs me about this whole thing! Full Agreement.

 

19 hours ago, invision said:

ive never needed or used a delta V read out. if your rocket can fly, land, and return from the mun you can almost reach everywhere in the game. all you need to do is add another tank or 2 for fuel.

So I can get back from Eve or Tylo when I just add 1-2 fuel tanks to my Mun lander? Who knew it was so easy.

 

14 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

A spreadsheet that is designed in the conventional manner (how much twr and DV will this stage produce) is definitely going to be tedious. A spreadsheet that is designed *backwards* (what stage do I need to build to achieve this twr and DV goal), OTOH... is not only *not* tedious, but actually more useful and user- friendly than the mods.

 Just plug in what you need, build what it recommends, and *kaphoomph*... profit. Your rocket does exactly what you need it to do.

OK thanks, but that does look like homework again. I did this kind of stuff 5 years ago, not long after I started playing. It got annoying really fast and I'm not interested in this anymore.

Either way, I feel like we're missing the point a bit. It's not that I am incapable/unwilling of installing mods, it's just that I'm wondering how the Devs imagined we would play a completely stock game. Is doing math homework in Excel part of how KSP is "meant to be" played?

 

Quote

 DV and TWR are not the answers, they are the questions. The true answers are which engine to use, how many engines, and how many fuel tanks.

Well exactly. So they wouldn't even give us the answers to the challanges, they would just give us meaningful and helpful questions on how to correctly do our missions.

 

12 hours ago, WildBill said:

I'm curious why you don't install KER? It's the first thing I add after a new release. My research so far indicates KER works with 1.4, although I'm still gonna waiting for 1.4.2 because bugs, well, bug me and it sounds like 1.4.1 still has its fair share of em...

4 hours ago, Black-Two- said:

You can use kOS and make your own pseudo-KER!

I did use KER (in 1.3 and before) and I probably will again in 1.4. I don't have a problem with KER, it's amazing. But that's not really the point of the discussion, I was just wondering how the devs envisioned the stock game experience, without any mods.

 

44 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

See, I don't want to know ahead if a rocket is going to work or not... where's the fun in that??? If I knew before even launching that a ship has enough fuel, then you totally lost that excited/scared feeling of landing on fumes, and not knowing if you're going to make it or not... or get into orbit or not... or anything for that matter. Knowing all that before you even hit the launch pad is... again, my own opinion... super-cheating. Why not turn on infinite fuel and be done with it?

Because for me, the big appeal of the game is the engineering challenge. I like to build stuff, and I like to build it to specifications (mission requirements), and I don't really like to add "moar boosters" to things that don't need them.

Also, lets not forget just how small the sizes and dV requirements really are, compared to real life. You can throw together pretty much anything and it will fly and do the mission if you have the piloting skills. To me, randomly throwing together parts and having them work out most of the time is kind of cheating.

Another thing is that the "explody-loving Kerbal" trial and error thing might be fun when all you do is build ridiculous contraptions in KEO. But once you start building more and more complex missions with launchers, transfer stages, multiple landers, probes, ... that go to places like Jool moons, then it's a different story.

"Whoops, my launcher blew up at Kerbin after 15s of flight" is a lot funnier than "Whoops, my lander can't get off of Tylo after 6 in-game years and dozens of hours of RL playtime".

Quote

No... I absolutely do NOT want to know if something is going to work before even putting on the launch pad... For me, this would totally kill the spirit of the game... and of being an explody-loving Kerbal. 

I gotta say, this kind of OMG SO RANDOM HAHA IT EXPLODED play style is just really not my thing. It would get tedious really really fast, and if it weren't for Mods like KER or MechJeb, I would have stopped playing years ago.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Kobymaru

[MaximumThrust]

1 hour ago, katateochi said:

I wouldn't put too much significance in "interest" in a search term.
All that really shows is the number of people looking for the front door. For a lot of us, who've maintained interest over the years, how often do we search for Kerbal? not often, we've prob already got tabs open (or bookmarked or however you roll) to the forum and other resources. If I do search for something "kerbal" it's usually prefixed with KSP rather than kerbal - ie KSP wiki, KSP calculators, etc, I'd say I almost never search for Kerbal. 

 

So yeah, Stock dV; I'm on the "I prefer the mod solutions" side of the fence, but I get some peps don't want, or can't use mods, so yes, there is the raw maths approach, but that's not for everyone. There's a kinda hacky Kerbal way which, while not 100% accurate, is "good enough for govt. work"; build, launch, open debug menu, cheat craft into orbit, create maneuver node without any dV, wait until you reach node, fire engines. The maneuver node will count the dV expended. 
I don't think KSP should provide a stock dV readout, because KSP is about figuring out weird solutions to problems; maths it, mod it, or do something Kerbal!

 

Why not? What tool/data you suggest to objectively measure the interest in the game over the years? "KSP", and "Kerbal Space Program" returns the same graph.

10 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

It looks like that spike coincided with the official 1.0 release. That was when I bought the game as well. What that graph really shows is the power of advertising: in this case, the magic of the Steam ads the moment you log in. Graphs like that are probably hanging in every ad guy's office. Not to say that your assumption is incorrect. It probably is. But I think a graph for most games would look quite the same (except the huge, extremely popular multiplayer ones). I have dozens of games I've tried for a bit and moved on, or never even loaded at all. I suspect we all do. You try something, and maybe it's not your cup of tea. Or not quite what you thought. Or maybe you think you'll come back to it later and give it another shot. There are plenty of reasons to move on to something else.

To me, KSP is one of those games that either grabs you immediately (and won't let go), or not at all. Is there such a thing as a "casual" KSP player? I'm not so sure. It's sort of a way of life; bordering on obsession. If someone found the game too hard or not to their liking, I don't think seeing the numbers would help. But for someone who likes the game and wants to get better, more info would certainly help. As I said, I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it will be incorporated into the stock game anytime soon. And though it may be necessary for your enjoyment (depending on the player), it is not necessary for your success.

What assumption? 

[Geonovast]

45 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

No... I absolutely do NOT want to know if something is going to work before even putting on the launch pad... For me, this would totally kill the spirit of the game... and of being an explody-loving Kerbal. 

I agree, to a point.  This is great for new players.  When I started, I wanted the explosions.  I wanted the stupid rockets.  I wanted to crash into the Mun by the seat of my pants.  I still do once in awhile.  Right now I'm replicating the rocket from the two-part season 3 ender of Archer, which is impractical in every way possible.  I don't think knowing AP/PE would take away from that.  Most new players would probably look at those numbers and go "I guess I'll figure out what those are later"

But once I started to know what I was doing, that went mostly away.  We're just asking for the most basic of necessary readouts.  I shouldn't have to constantly switch back and forth between map view and flight view just to make sure my rocket is staying stable and going to get to orbit. 

It gives us dV for maneuver nodes, which is a completely useless number if you don't know how much dV you have.  Why not get rid of the number and just go with the bar and timers then?  At least the burn time and time to node are numbers everyone is going to understand. 

 

Yes, we have many options for mods if we want these numbers.  But given that there are players who use no mods, as well as console players, putting a few more readouts in the game needs to be considered.  Of course make them toggle-able.  Even integrate them into the difficulty settings.  Default them to "off" if need be.  Make them unlock-able in early career. But put them there. These are numbers the game already has.

 

[GoSlash27]

Kobymaru,
 Your original question was "how do we deal with building rockets without using KER/MJ"? My post was in response to that question. That's how *I* do it. Others here have gotten good at guesstimating DV by sight. Even others never have a clear idea of their DV and TWR and they prefer it that way. I understand that you don't share our preferences and that's cool... That's why they make mods.

 Now the question is "How is a newbie expected to deal". Well... space is hard, so newbies are expected to fail a lot and then learn from their experience. Some will trial and error and develop rules of thumb, some will get into the math and develop their own tools, some will install KER or MJ. There's no "wrong way" to do it.

 Keep in mind that proposing changes to the stock game affects all players, not just yourself. A lot of us prefer not having this information handed to us. It's easy for you to install a mod to provide this info. Not so easy for us to install a mod to remove it.

 AFA displaying Ap/Pe as a heads- up thing, I absolutely agree with that. I think the player should be able to see the data provided in the map view while watching the launch. 1st level tracking shows only Ap/Pe, 2nd level adds time to both.

 Best,
-Slashy

[Just Jim]

@Kobymaru and @Geonovast I totally understand your POV. 

For me, I think the best option is if they are going to put it in, then just give us an off/on switch so I can play without it.

Then everyone is happy.  

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Just Jim said:

@Kobymaru and @Geonovast I totally understand your POV. 

For me, I think the best option is if they are going to put it in, then just give us an off/on switch so I can play without it.

Then everyone is happy.  

I'd agree with that.

Best,
-Slashy

[Kerbal101]

Fully support adding per-stage dV readout in FAB/SPH and into simulation.

Also I strongly support adding separate Hspd/Vspd and Radar (terrain) altitude readouts, which is actual altitude to surface (they are present in the cockpits/pods, but not visible in 3rd perspective which makes probe landing via camera a bit complex).

[Pthigrivi]

There are a bunch of really critical flight planning tools that are missing (precise node, alarm clock, better burn time, a transfer tool, ect.) but dV is and has been the most glaring. It honestly boggles my mind that it isnt in there already. We've had this discussion so many times, but its the single biggest reason 90% of players never leave KSOI. And absolutely, there are a handful of us veteran nerds who are perfectly happy to bust out a calculator, but if the goal is to make a game that has longevity of gameplay for the vast majority of players we've got to throw a bone so they dont give up in frustration before landing on duna. 

 

Edit: and not to take away from 1.4 and making history (I mean damn parachutes and an art pass, who thought we'd see that?). 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[stenole]

I think two things need to be in place to enjoy the stock game after getting used to having deltaV and TWR values handed to you:

- You need to have enough experience to eyeball what kind of TWR you will get with different. You know how many of tank X can get lifted by engine Y off of Kerbin. And you just convert the mass of payload into number of tank X. It's not accurate but it gets the job done. You also know what amount of engines you need to make trajectory changes in one burn.

- You need to accept the loss of precision compared to before. You need to have greater margins for more complex missions which visits several worlds. Alternatively, you make refueling stops along the way to keep the uncertainty constrained between the individual legs of your mission.

There is also the possibility that you have squeezed as much fun as you can out of this game. You've already achieved what you wanted to achieve and you've learned everything you wanted to learn.

[JamesL86]

I don't post a lot but I feel that I need to add in my two cents as well.

I've been playing since 2014 and I will not play KSP without KER at the absolute minimum.  I've got four friends that also play KSP.  Out of us five, three of us play with KER as a minimum, one gets by without it but rarely goes beyond LKO and the other gave up due to a lack of information.  That last player is an engineer and even he thinks it's the height of stupidity that you have to mod in basic information for a game that is supposed to teach rocket science.

I'd go so far as to say that I find it insulting that someone would tell me that a game is gonna teach me something, but then make me go trawling through the internet to actually learn what it offered to teach me.  That is borderline lying in my book.

I don't care if there is an option to turn it on or off.  I don't care if people still use KER/MechJeb even after its added because they like the mod better.  The point is, there is a critical bit of information display missing from the game.  Further, there are more than enough people within the community that want this to be stock as evidenced by the number of times this discussion keeps comes up.  
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the feedback that we see from those among us that can "get by without it".  My point though is that y'alls ability to get by is not a valid argument against our desire to have this feature.  Nor do I believe that the original intent of game being trial and error is a valid argument against KER-like displays either.

Just be sure to give it an I/O switch so that both sides are appeased.

[TK421d]

21 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Just a week ago, we had a very very good discussion on this topic.  I recommend checking it out:

 

There are a lot of good points pro and con in this thread, with the cavemen offering up some very good tips on doing the math easily.  I would assume that most wouldn't want to repost all that stuff again. 

 

and its been discussed many, many, many, many, many, many, many other times.

and will be discussed again in the future.

 

why?  because Squad keeps putting their fingers in their ears and saying no despite where all those discussions end up.

[OHara]

2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

For me, I think the best option is if they are going to put [dV, TWR readout] in, then just give us an off/on switch so I can play without it.

Then everyone is happy.  

ON: show engine specificiations and total dV & TWR like the Basic-delta-V mod does

OFF: hide specifications of thrust, fuel-flow and Isp  for all engines; show only masses

Then the 'off' setting supports both the play-style that enjoys risk,
and the option to experimentally measure fuel flow and thrust in atmosphere and vacuum as an in-game progression, building up the data in a spreadsheet like goSlash27's spreadsheet, or as KSP-intuition the player's brain.

The current state of the game, with all engine stats displayed, does let the player know the delta-V of a rocket; it is merely inconvenient to calculate, so those stats can look like a cruel tease to new players.

[Just Jim]

20 minutes ago, OHara said:

ON: show engine specificiations and total dV & TWR like the Basic-delta-V mod does

OFF: hide specifications of thrust, fuel-flow and Isp  for all engines; show only masses

Then the 'off' setting supports both the play-style that enjoys risk,
and the option to experimentally measure fuel flow and thrust in atmosphere and vacuum as an in-game progression, building up the data in a spreadsheet like goSlash27's spreadsheet, or as KSP-intuition the player's brain.

The current state of the game, with all engine stats displayed, does let the player know the delta-V of a rocket; it is merely inconvenient to calculate, so those stats can look like a cruel tease to new players.

I could do this, or even have a third option, like "on", "standard", and "totally off".

[MaximumThrust]

1 hour ago, JamesL86 said:

I don't post a lot but I feel that I need to add in my two cents as well.

I've been playing since 2014 and I will not play KSP without KER at the absolute minimum.  I've got four friends that also play KSP.  Out of us five, three of us play with KER as a minimum, one gets by without it but rarely goes beyond LKO and the other gave up due to a lack of information.  That last player is an engineer and even he thinks it's the height of stupidity that you have to mod in basic information for a game that is supposed to teach rocket science.

I'd go so far as to say that I find it insulting that someone would tell me that a game is gonna teach me something, but then make me go trawling through the internet to actually learn what it offered to teach me.  That is borderline lying in my book.

I don't care if there is an option to turn it on or off.  I don't care if people still use KER/MechJeb even after its added because they like the mod better.  The point is, there is a critical bit of information display missing from the game.  Further, there are more than enough people within the community that want this to be stock as evidenced by the number of times this discussion keeps comes up.  
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the feedback that we see from those among us that can "get by without it".  My point though is that y'alls ability to get by is not a valid argument against our desire to have this feature.  Nor do I believe that the original intent of game being trial and error is a valid argument against KER-like displays either.

Just be sure to give it an I/O switch so that both sides are appeased.

I can tell a similar experience. All of my friends stopped playing it in a very short time, and without any huge accomplishments, due to the lack of information (TWR, dV, orbital info, info on how to transfer to other planets, info on suicide burns, etc) and the ridiculous wobbling rockets and the time/patient it take to strut everything. When I see something about KSP in places not related to the game, many people comment similar things. Most people think you are supposed to figure everything by eye and a exhausting try and error process, or to be a genius, and simply go away.

I think this made the game lost a lot of players very prematurely  If weren't for mods, I also would be one of them.

[katateochi]

3 hours ago, MaximumThrust said:

Why not? What tool/data you suggest to objectively measure the interest in the game over the years? "KSP", and "Kerbal Space Program" returns the same graph.

As a community stabilizes, searches for it diminish, so that doesn't really say anything about sustained interest. The best data would be data we don't have access to; ie analytics of this forum; view and posts per day would be a fairly good indicator, but that's still only a cross section of the player base. Steam stats, but again, that's only a cross section (and one which cuts out some of the players who were onboard before it was available on steam). 

I have the google analytics stats for KerbalX, which again, is only a cross section of the player base, but since I started tracking analytics in for it back in 2015, it shows a steady upward trend in users/sessions per day. I say that suggests a continued interest and engagement by the community.
As you say, some people will only have a short lived interest in the game and the lack of some bits of in game info probably contributes to that. But for others the need to go and find stuff out and the fact the game doesn't just hand you everything, is the very reason that they stick around. Speaking for myself, that's been what's made KSP so captivating and kept me interested since 2012!

[zhollett]

I have been playing since 2012 and each release plays out like this:

1.  Download
2.  Start new career file
3.  Advance career to where landing on the Mun begins
4.  Install KER/KAC
5.  Play until the next release/update

I understand how some people are able to guess about how well a particular rocket will perform just by looking at it. (I have been playing for so long, I have memorized the m/s requirements for the kerbin/mun/minmus transfers) For the early stages of the game KER/KAC are not required at all for me.  Once I begin exploring further, they are required not because I can't do it, but because it just makes it so much more convenient to do the larger missions.  Accepting 4  "Place a satellite in orbit of X" missions and building a ship to get them all to orbit in 1 shot... its just so much more fun not to have to laboriously calculate each stage. I have the excel spreadsheets to prove it. If I had to, I would create my own mod but since KER/KAC exist, I don't have to.  
I would absolutely love to be able to have access to those numbers once they become important enough for me to get the mods.

 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

16 hours ago, Geonovast said:

What drives me insane (and the only reason I initially got KER) was no AP/PE readout in flight view.   Make it toggle-able.  Make it unlock-able in career.  Just put it in there.

This drives me crazy as well, the info is available you just have to constantly screw around to see it. I highly recommend Dmagic's Basic Orbit mod for this purpose.

The thing that got me hooked on this game was the little rush of accomplishment- getting into orbit for the first time, landing on the Mun the first time, etc. It was fun white knuckle play. Later on I tried KER, which is an impressive bit of software, but things became too formulaic for my tastes- having missions be guaranteed to work became less fun than playing a game and trying to be good at it by exploring and failing so I stopped using KER. If dV/TWR readouts get added eventually I hope they are optional.

[klgraham1013]

Basic Orbit and Basic dV are great "simpiler" options for new players.  Also, Basic dV's integration into the stock UI is great.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

5 hours ago, MaximumThrust said:

What assumption? 

You said this:

"I understand all the fun and accomplishment in building the rockets be eye, only guessing things, and making gruesome mistakes. But it's a very short-lived experience, that gets more boring and tiresome than fun very fast. Most people got this taste around the boom in popularity in 2015, and then abandoned the game."

...and then showed a graph. Since we can't know what other people are thinking, that's an assumption. As I said, you may be correct, but there are other factors as well. Not sure where the confusion lies.

 

5 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

You can throw together pretty much anything and it will fly and do the mission if you have the piloting skills. To me, randomly throwing together parts and having them work out most of the time is kind of cheating.

That however, is not only perplexing but downright amusing. First off, who said anything about "randomly throwing together parts"? The best part is, if you actually build a rocket and see if it works, you're cheating. If you know the answers before hitting the spacebar, it's okay. Answers that were given to you through someone else's hard work. What you're saying is the same thing you see all the time; "the way I play is right, the way you play is cheating". It's usually stock guys talking to mod guys, so I guess this would be reverse discrimination. Whatever works for ya, bud.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[basic.syntax]

Felipe Falange, aka 'HarversteR', the original game designer, was asked many times about delta-V, and is quoted below.   A year later former producer Maxmaps hinted they would work on it, but, obviously it didn't happen. Yet. Every time you ask Squad about "shmelta-v" they don't answer. That doesn't mean it will never happen.   

PC Gamer article (link)

Quote

Some players are interested in a delta-V indicator [which would show you exactly how much thrust a rocket has, basically]. What do you think? 

Falange: I wanted it sometimes, and I un-wanted it other times. In the end, it takes away a gameplay element because it takes some of the guesswork and some of the trial and error and figuring out for yourself what the delta-V is. It might take some of the magic away. One of the great things about KSP is doing just what Chad was doing just now [Editor's note: this was Thursday afternoon, and Chad Jenkins was in the process of livesteaming his creation of a flying rocket-powered surfboard, killing two-dozen Kerbals in the process] . That ridiculous contraption he was doing, just trying to see if he could make it to the water, just shooting it on a rocket. If you make it too technical, it's certainly possible to calculate it. But it's like giving the answer to a puzzle sometimes, and I don't know if we want that. The same applies to showing how much burn time you have remaining. I think there's always this element of tension of trying to calculate in your head how much fuel you have left and if you're going to make it. It's like filling out the crossword puzzle for you.

 

I have a solar rescue contract that I think about attempting every so often, I'm down to 18 years of game time to do it in, and it looks like it will take over 10,000 dv to bring the lost Kerbal home. If I don't figure out some slingshots to help reduce that number... which may not be possible if waiting for one to line up, would push mission time over 18 years   All that to say I see reason to have some more stock-game help available, as an option, for these complex 'end game' scenarios.  

Edited March 17, 2018 by basic.syntax

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, TK421d said:

and its been discussed many, many, many, many, many, many, many other times.

and will be discussed again in the future.

 

why?  because Squad keeps putting their fingers in their ears and saying no despite where all those discussions end up.

Of course it has, and of course it will.  I was only pointing out that thread in particular was very enlightening, at least to me. 

[Kobymaru]

13 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

First off, who said anything about "randomly throwing together parts"? The best part is, if you actually build a rocket and see if it works, you're cheating.

I'm not saying you are throwing parts together randomly. I'm just saying you could perfectly well do it and get away with it, because the stock game is just that easy with the tiny planets and OP engines.

 

13 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

 

13 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

If you know the answers before hitting the spacebar, it's okay. Answers that were given to you through someone else's hard work. 

The dV number isn't the answer. The Boolean "Seeing if it works" isn't the answer, or the reason I play the game. The spacecraft is the answer, the staging, the engine choice, everything. dV is no more than a tool to be precise about it. I still put in a lot of work into the design of the vehicle. The difference is that I do less (not none) trial-end-error and more reading numbers that are perfectly obvious and shouldn't be a secret.

This idea that withholding information is fun really boggles me. It might work in a novel, but not a game about engineering.

[JamesL86]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

The dV number isn't the answer. The Boolean "Seeing if it works" isn't the answer, or the reason I play the game. The spacecraft is the answer, the staging, the engine choice, everything. dV is no more than a tool to be precise about it. I still put in a lot of work into the design of the vehicle. The difference is that I do less (not none) trial-end-error and more reading numbers that are perfectly obvious and shouldn't be a secret.

This idea that withholding information is fun really boggles me. It might work in a novel, but not a game about engineering.

This right here.  I'll often spend hours or even days working on a design.  Why?  Well it's definitely not because its boring.  Be it a rocket, station, or spaceplane, every little detail is important to me.  Every ounce of fuel must be accounted for.  Efficiency is the game I play.  Heck, its often assumed that you need about 3500dV to get to orbit.  Using the Gravity Turn mod to provide controlled and repeatable launches, I've been able to get to orbit with less than 3000dV.  That sort of thing is my "meat and potatoes" in KSP.  I've done grand tours etc and I can honestly tell you that I would not have without KER, and to a lesser extent MechJeb.  After close to 3000 hours in-game I'm still left feeling like crucial information is missing from the stock game.  That just feels unfinished as far as I am concerned.

Even if I wanted to do that math, it doesn't even succeed in teaching the math to do it yourself.  There is no tutorial that walks you through the calculations or what have you.  No, new players have to watch videos on YouTube or go to Wikipedia.