Kerbin should have a pole inclination

[Hunony]

earth dont just turn to side it also has a inclination of its poles so this is a thing we should really have

[Zeiss Ikon]

As I understand it, Kerbin was set at zero inclination, and the Mun's orbit the same, to simplify the learning curve of getting to orbit.  Just launch due east, and you get a no- or low-inclination orbit, from which it's easy to get to the Mun (if you have the delta-V).  Replicate Earth's situation (for instance, with a scaled down Real Solar System mod), and you have to compensate for launching from Florida instead of an equatorial site, and then deal with the fact that the Moon's orbit is not only slightly inclined relative to the celestial equator, but also not quite circular.

We have other simplifying conditions, too -- the patched conics system with "Sphere of Influence" for each body, within which gravity of all other bodies is ignored, far simpler than a real multi-body system, but also eliminated potentially useful things like Lagrange libration points.  The simplified orbit calculation also removes orbital instability due to the Earth's oblateness (fatter at the equator, squashed at the poles) which makes some orbits unstable) and the effect of mass concentrations ("masscons") on Earth and the Moon that make other orbits unstable (for instance, no Lunar equatorial orbit is long-term stable due to the combination of masscons and Earth's perturbation, and there are a limited number of stable regions in geostationary; put your comsat in the wrong place and you'll use up all the station keeping propellant in a year or two instead of the ten-plus design life).

To make the game a playable game, and one that's fun for folks who aren't actual rocket scientists, and to make it possible to program and within the capability of ordinary home computers, the simplifications were added in.  There are mods to put back (most of) the complications if you're expert enough to consider it fun to need 3-4 times the dV just to get to orbit and then have your orbit decay in a couple years, in exchange for being able to, for instance, park an object behind the Moon and have it pretty much stay there.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

 

23 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

As I understand it, Kerbin was set at zero inclination, and the Mun's orbit the same, to simplify the learning curve of getting to orbit.  Just launch due east, and you get a no- or low-inclination orbit, from which it's easy to get to the Mun (if you have the delta-V).  Replicate Earth's situation (for instance, with a scaled down Real Solar System mod), and you have to compensate for launching from Florida instead of an equatorial site, and then deal with the fact that the Moon's orbit is not only slightly inclined relative to the celestial equator, but also not quite circular.

<snip>

Probably the biggest reason there aren't axial tilts (even on farther out planets where you would presumably have gathered the skill to deal with such things) in KSP is because with Unity, you can't give them different tilts. All the planets have to have the same axis of rotation as the Sun (or Kerbol, or whatever you call it)

The only reason we appear to get axial tilts in RO is because there is a mod (Principia I believe) that does a very wonky workaround that gives the planet you are currently operating on the correct tilt, but meanwhile all the other celestial bodies will have the wrong axial tilts because their rotation axis must be parallel with the one you are on. It requires a lot of computer magic to make sure everything is put in the right orbit when the axis are getting flipped all around every time you switch to a different celestial body.

I think the devs don't feel like using such a wonky workaround, so unless Unity changes, then I am extremely doubtful we will get axial tilts.

At least that's my understanding from last time I asked a question about it to one of the devs.

Edited April 7, 2018 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Zeiss Ikon]

1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Probably the biggest reason there aren't axial tilts (even on farther out planets where you would presumably have gathered the skill to deal with such things) in KSP is because with Unity, you can't give them different tilts. All the planets have to have the same axis of rotation as the Sun (or Kerbol, or whatever you call it)

Hmm.  I'll have to check this.  I'd have sworn Minmus (for an example I've visited a good number of times) had a rotation axis matched to its orbital inclination (though with a 36-hour rotation, you have to specifically look for it to notice either way).  Other bodies one could check (whether spin axis is oriented to the Sun or to the orbital plane) are Gilly, Dres, and Eloo, all of which have significantly inclined orbits.  I've landed on Gilly once, and flown by Duna/Ike, but didn't pay attention to axial tilt when I was there -- for the Duna/Ike flyby, it was "can this craft actually make it to Duna and back?" and for the Gilly landing it was a similar "because it's there" sort of goal (both in a science game).

[Superfluous J]

I think the team that added Krakensbane and procedural Mun craters and multi-orbit-predictive patched conics could add separate axial tilts to the game.

If only they still worked here.

Regarding "should"s, Kerbin should be tilted to the Sun, 20-25 degrees so it's Earthlike. Mun should be tilted as well, so it's still easy to get to from Kerbin's equator. Going to a tilted Mun from a tilted Kerbin would be exactly like going to the Mun now, if both are tilted the same.

Minmus should orbit Kerbin in the ecliptic, so it's still tilted relative to Kerbin, but is now NOT tilted relative to the Sun and the majority of planets' orbits. That way, Minmus is about as difficult to get to as it is now from Kerbin, but offers a nice tasty launch point for interplanetary maneuvers.

Eve should rotate backwards (and slowly) like Venus, and GP2 (while we're "should"ing here) should be added and rotate on its side like Uranus.

[klgraham1013]

Each body, in order of dV travel cost, should provide a new, unique, and progressively more difficult challenge for the player.  Unfortunately, I feel like only a minimal amount of thought was put into this.  As it is, difficulty in KSP is relegated to arbitrary rules and unlocks in career mode.

Edited April 7, 2018 by klgraham1013

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Each body, in order of dV travel cost, should provide a new, unique, and progressively more difficult challenge for the player.  Unfortunately, I feel like only a minimal amount of thought was put into this.  As it is, difficulty in KSP is relegated to arbitrary rules and unlocks in career mode.

Ummm, I don't think each body should provide "in order of dV travel cost, should provide a new, unique, and progressively more difficult challenge for the player"

Rather I think each body should have its own quirks, and there can be different bodies with similar challenges, but one being harder than the other.

I think the stock bodies are actually pretty good in general, with some exceptions.

From kerbin, going out:

Spoiler

Mun: one of the first challenges, after achieving orbit, a challenge that requires propulsive landing (previously, the player would only have to pop chutes) in significant gravity, and has enough of a dV requirement that orbital rendevous can make sense. It of course has the "challenge" (for new players) of properly timing and executing a transfer burn.

Minmus: The gravity is so low that propulsive landings aren't much of a challenge, its a low gravity playground. It does introduce the "challenge" or matching inclination for the transfer burn.

Duna: The challenge of going interplanetary, and also of landing in a very thin atmosphere, but one that is thick enough that you should pay attention to aerodynamics. Its one of the most forgiving places to try to tackle the challenge of aerobraking/aerocapture. Its also got Ike

Ike: its very much like Mun in terms of challenge once you arrive there, but it adds the challenge of avoiding it with slight tweaks to trajectory when approaching duna, or actually using it for gravity assists.

Eve: Definitely has its own unique challenge... strong gravity (strongest surface G in the game), thick atmosphere, many places aren't suitable for landing (mountains or seas)... I don't think anyone will fight me on this one

Gilly: not so much of a challenge, as it is the ultimate low grav playground. Getting an intercept with it can be challenging due to its inclination and eccentricity + small SOI

Moho: the challenge is in getting there, and having enough dV. While the previous destinations (eve excluded) can make use or orbital rendezvous, its nearly required for a successful mission here (same with Eve). Once there, its just a slightly bigger and stronger grav version of Mun

Dres.... I guess again the challenge is getting there, as the inclination difference is more of a challenge on interplanetary missions (for minmus, you can launch directly into the right inclination, not so on kerbin, when you reach LKO, relative to the sun, you're still at essentially 0 inclination). Once there... its again like Mun.

Jool: not much to do here, you can do a jool limbo to try and get low into its atmosphere and come out, its challenge is its size and atmosphere. The main thing is that it hosts a system of moons

Laythe: not so challenging over all. It strongly encourages people to take on the challenge of taking a spaceplane interplanetary. It also presents the challenge of designing craft to land on water, or designing and piloting craft to land on the relatively small islands. It also serves as a good gravity assist option,. It also presents an aerpcapture challenge, as you'll want to tweak your trajectory to aerocapture with a trajectory going tangent to Laythe's orbit to minimize relative velocity.

Tylo: a gravity assist/interference challenge. Mainly a challenge in doing a completely propulsive landing in strong gravity

Vall, Bop, Poll, Eeloo: meh... these don't really add much. Vall has vallhenge and is between laythe and Tylo, but the rest of them I visit even less than Dres.

 

[klgraham1013]

29 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Rather I think each body should have its own quirks, and there can be different bodies with similar challenges, but one being harder than the other.

Actually similar to my thoughts besides the game-ifying difficulty curve.  As long as there's actual thought put into things.  That's all I ask for.  It doesn't always feel like that with KSP.

[KerikBalm]

This is going a bit off topic, but I can sort of agree with you that some bodies seem to be put in just to be analogues of our solar system, with not much thought beyond being an analogue. Other bodies can seem to just be ornaments for the sun or Jool...

While Eve and Duna are clearly analogues, they also are obvious candidates for inclusion for gameplay purposes because of their unique characteristics. 

Surely you agree that thought was put into making Eve a unique experience for the player (deviating from the real analog, with lowered atmospheric density, but increased gravity). (1)

Same with Duna (but in reverse with the atmo desnisty and gravity) (2)

Ike was pretty obviously put in there to present a challenge to the player (evidenced by its tracking station description: "Scientists have postulated that Ike is seemingly perfectly positioned to sneakily interfere with any object that presumes to come orbiting near its parent" (3)

Laythe is very clearly a unique experience - unless you feel that its too similar to Kerbin, and the novelty of having to go interplanetary to get there is not enough for you? (4)

Tylo, I think you'll agree its something that was but in there after thinking about gameplay. They should know that a moon that big (for KSP proportions) with that much gravity should have an atmosphere. It wasn't put in there just to be an analogue. (5)

Minmus isn't an analogue of anything, its there purely for gameplay. (6)

I could see your point about the rest seeming to be just analogues with little thought, or filler (Moho(1), Gilly(2), Dres(3), Eeloo(4), Vall(5), Bop,(6) Poll(7), Mun (nah its too iconic, and too much of a new player goal). So in my opinion, thats roughly half the bodies where it seems that they were added with a clear gameplay purpose in mind.

Whether half the bodies with a clear gameplay purpose/quirk counts as "a minimal amount of thought", I suppose is a matter of opinion.

FWIW, I'd say Moho has a clear purpose, but its like Eve, just to be really hard to get to and return from, but just a high dV budget is not particularly interesting, so maybe this is minimal thought. Eeloo is just a far place.. minimal thought. I'm also not counting Jool, because it does serve a gameplay purpose, but its to be like a mini-solar system (which does have unique gameplay effects), so I often consider it like the Sun. Its a backdrop, not a place you visit,

[nightingale]

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I think the team that added Krakensbane and procedural Mun craters and multi-orbit-predictive patched conics could add separate axial tilts to the game.

If only they still worked here.

I have confidence that the people on the current team (most of whom I've worked with) would be able to make it work, if given the opportunity.  I had a look myself back when I had access and it didn't look too bad (keep in mind that looking and doing are two very different things).  The worst part looked to be the day/night cycle stuff, not the actual axial tilt itself.

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Regarding "should"s, Kerbin should be tilted to the Sun, 20-25 degrees so it's Earthlike. Mun should be tilted as well, so it's still easy to get to from Kerbin's equator. Going to a tilted Mun from a tilted Kerbin would be exactly like going to the Mun now, if both are tilted the same.

I've always been of the opinion that if it gets added it should be tied to difficulty settings rather than fixed (ie. easy mode has no axial tilt as it is today, versus the other modes having a different tilt).  Same thing with the location of KSC - it shouldn't be right on the equator in anything but easy mode.

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Eve should rotate backwards (and slowly) like Venus, and GP2 (while we're "should"ing here) should be added and rotate on its side like Uranus.

These would be good changes.  Who knows, this could all be stuff for expansion #2 (note: I have no idea about this stuff anymore, so don't read into anything I say).