What tech belongs in KSP 2?

[KerikBalm]

I'm just curious where people think the line should be drawn for KSP 2.

If some choice is unclear, or you think there is a category of tech that should be included that I have left off, please mention it.

Edited July 22, 2020 by KerikBalm

[Guest]

I think the serious educational role of KSP ends with teaching people orbital mechanics and to visualize them.

And that's not a small feat given that most people just think that if you go up enough the gravity will simply magically disappear.

My expectations for realism ends at not being able to go at significant fractions of the speed of light or even faster, anything else should be subservient to  gameplay.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

The thing with "serious educational role" is that it's rather impractical if not impossible to separate it out. It either is an educational game, and it should stick to the facts, or it isn't, and anything goes. Sending mixed messages is bad. KSP it does orbital mechanics and "modern" rocket engineering right, and for most people, it means it does everything more or less right, unless something has big "FICTIONAL" tag on it. Nobody believes Kerbals or Mystery Goo are real (I hope so), but you'll find people asking "why did SpaceX give up asparagus staging if it works so well in KSP?" all the time. That, I might add, is merely a quantitative example, far milder than adding outright nonexistent techs. KSP1 mostly sticks to Apollo-era idea of space exploration, which means it doesn't need to make stuff up. Even the science experiments, besides mystery goo, are mostly correct in what they do (yes, even Gravioli detector, though an actual gravimeter is much less funny and harder to explain to a kid, it does more or less the same thing).

It's the same reason half-truths are worse than pure bald-faced lies. The latter are usually rather easy to spot if you're observant, while a half-truth will usually check out at a glance, and separating truth from lies in such statements is very difficult. If you put down a game as educational, most people learning from it (as opposed to those few playing purely for fun, having acquired the knowledge elsewhere) would usually not question the inaccuracies, and any "pixie dust engine" you add will be taken as a real technology. As such, this is a very irresponsible thing to add such a technology to an educational game. As a rule of thumb, mixed messages won't be understood properly, ever.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

The thing with "serious educational role" is that it's rather impractical if not impossible to separate it out. It either is an educational game, and it should stick to the facts, or it isn't, and anything goes.

Then it's not, problem solved.

I don't think most people around here play KSP for its educational value.

It's a fun and engaging game that coincidentally teaches you orbital mechanics.

[KerikBalm]

@Master39 Whether they play it to learn or not is, I think, beside the point. Many people will learn as a byproduct of playing, but not the goal.

The question is whether people believe that what they see in the game corresponds to reality. 

While this is a rather esoteric subject, in general I think spreading misinformation is very harmful.

 

On another note, I should have changed hte order of the 4th and 5th options. I also wonder if @Master39 could explain his reasoning why he voted in favor of:

"Tech that is only possible if a material with certain properties exists, which almost definitely does not exist", but not "Tech that is only possible if a material with certain properties exists, which may not exist"

Were you just voting based on the examples given, and not the more generalized category?

If I were to further specify that "pixie dust rockets" allow FTL, would you vote the same way?

[Bej Kerman]

What is a "pixie dust rocket"?

[Guest]

Anything that doesn't run on something that can actually be used as fuel, or a close analogue. Magic, hype, karborundrum, mystery goo, dark matter, that sort of thing. Basically, purely fictional stuff, or with a very flimsy connection to actual science.

28 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Then it's not, problem solved.

I don't think most people around here play KSP for its educational value.

It's a fun and engaging game that coincidentally teaches you orbital mechanics.

Except not. People don't necessarily play to learn, but they do learn by playing. The only people who are not taught anything in the course of the game are those who already know, from another source, how these things really work. Most people will believe what they see in the game, because this will be their first exposure to these technologies, and seeing that KSP already built up scientific credibility as a brand, they won't see any reason to doubt it. The only people not to get taken by any falsehoods presented that way will be ones who already know better. Seeing as avid readers of Atomic Rockets and NASA engineers are a minority out there (and indeed, people start reading Atomic Rockets and try to become NASA engineers because of KSP, not the other way around), I'd say we should think of the wider, less informed demographic.

Also, that you declare KSP "not educational" won't stop Squad and T2 from marketing it as such, which is what they're doing. Make them drop this angle and you can have your pixie dust. KSP is educational, because everyone from devs to marketing agree that it is. If so, it has to be held to a standard expected of an educational medium.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Whether they play it to learn or not is, I think, beside the point. Many people will learn as a byproduct of playing, but not the goal.

The question is whether people believe that what they see in the game corresponds to reality.

That's that people problem, I don't ask Kerbal to follow higher standards than any other game.

 

33 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

On another note, I should have changed hte order of the 4th and 5th options. I also wonder if @Master39 could explain his reasoning why he voted in favor of:

I've not voted, I think my first comment makes clear that the options make no sense for me as I don't think the level of realism in the background tech matters.

I can't see votes from mobile but it's absolutely possible I clicked something while scrolling.

 

19 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Except not. People don't necessarily play to learn, but they do learn by playing. The only people who are not taught anything in the course of the game are those who already know, from another source, how these things really work. Most people will believe what they see in the game, because this will be their first exposure to these technologies, and seeing that KSP already built up scientific credibility as a brand, they won't see any reason to doubt it. The only people not to get taken by any falsehoods presented that way will be ones who already know better. Seeing as avid readers of Atomic Rockets and NASA engineers are a minority out there (and indeed, people start reading Atomic Rockets and try to become NASA engineers because of KSP, not the other way around), I'd say we should think of the wider, less informed demographic.

Also, that you declare KSP "not educational" won't stop Squad and T2 from marketing it as such, which is what they're doing. Make them drop this angle and you can have your pixie dust. KSP is educational, because everyone from devs to marketing agree that it is. If so, it has to be held to a standard expected of an educational medium.

This line of thinking obviously very conveniently doesn't apply to the 1/10 scale, to magical reaction wheel, missing or simplified life support and not having N-Body physics?

Also, isn't the existence of easily built self-sustaining colonies and feasible interstellar travel a bigger educational problem than some detail in the description of some engines?

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[KerikBalm]

Just now, Master39 said:

That's that people problem, I don't ask Kerbal to follow higher standards than any other game.

Well, to me, my standards depend on the context. If something tries to give the impression that its realistic, I will expect a certain level of realism.

If its something that is clearly not intended to be realistic (the Witcher, for instance), then I give it a pass as long as its fun and not too ridiculous.

I would argue that many of the developer's statements amount to an implicit claim of realism for various elements of KSP2 (propulsion technology more so than life support and colony mechanics), this also combines with the history of overall realism of its predecessor, to create a context where I expect a much higher realism standard for this game compared to say... Halo.

Of course, I normally give passes to things that are abstracted/simplified because of limitations of the game engine/computational power (patched conics vs N-body physics, small planet size so that terrain can still be reasonably detailed when viewed from the surface), and situationally for gameplay (deep engine throttling, infinite restarts), or some combination of gameplay and engine limitations (no thrust on rails of KSP = I excuse the much too high ion engine thrust; No persistent vessel rotation when on rails = I excuse the lack of reaction wheel saturation mechanics)

Just now, Master39 said:

I've not voted, I think my first comment makes clear that the options make no sense for me as I don't thin the level of realism in the background tech matters.

I can't see votes from mobile but it's absolutely possible I clicked something while scrolling.

My bad, I just assumed it was you, because when I checked, there was only 1 reply (yours), and only 1 other person had voted, so I assumed the vote came from you.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Master39 said:

This line of thinking obviously very conveniently doesn't apply to the 1/10 scale, to magical reaction wheel, missing or simplified life support and not having N-Body physics?

Also, isn't the existence of easily built self-sustaining colonies and feasible interstellar travel a bigger educational problem than some detail in the description of some engines?

False equivalence. All things you listed are quantitative differences. There's nothing stopping you from making a powerful gyroscope, or even an actual momentum wheel, if you can handle the mass and power requirements. In fact, ISS uses gyros for keeping attitude. Yes, the ones we get are OP, but that's more of a gameplay flaw. The problem are qualitative differences, which KSP doesn't have that many of. For example, I think you can agree that Kerbin is mindbogglingly big. The distance from it to the Mun is also big, almost too difficult to imagine. This statement is also true in real life. Yes, the distances are even more impressive, and timescales even longer, but it doesn't matter, what matter is that space is all-caps, bolded BIG, and that's undeniably the case in KSP. N-body gravitation doesn't actually produce very different results from patched conics except in a very few (though undeniably interesting) edge cases. Why do you think NASA uses it for mission planning? If KSP2 was to have N-body, average players wouldn't notice unless something (like a binary planet) was put in specifically to make them notice. 

As for missing life support, it's, well, missing. It's better to keep quiet than to spout falsehoods, and KSP1 has kept quiet on that. It doesn't do life support, so it doesn't, most people already know they need oxygen to breathe, and KSP is not going to convince them otherwise. It's also not going to be the case in KSP2, some kind of LS is going to be in. What do they mean by "simplified" remains to be seen, and oversimplifying it will be subject to the same criticism. Either make it both realistic and fun, or don't make it at all. 

Regarding colonies and interstellar travel, both might actually happen someday. The former is, in fact, certain businessman's reason for trying to get a steel water tower to fly to Mars (can't have a frontier colony without a big ol' water tower, no?).  Interstellar flight is more challenging than that, but it's more of less just a matter of packing enough supplies and building a big enough rocket to lift them. As you might have seen from the videos, the ones in KSP2 can be built pretty darn big for that very purpose. 

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

What is a "pixie dust rocket"?

Well, its a rocket using "a material with certain properties exists, which almost definitely does not exist ". The performance specs are intentionally vague.

Maybe I should have called it "unobtanium" instead of "pixie dust", but its essentially the same thing, a rose by another other name... you know

FWIW, the warp drive example doesn't neccessarily imply FTL warp drive, because in theory, warp drives could also result in slower than light speeds.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

What is a "pixie dust rocket"?

Well, its a rocket using "a material with certain properties exists, which almost definitely does not exist ". The performance specs are intentionally vague.

Sounds like something that'd go under engineering challenges.

[KerikBalm]

@Bej Kerman  The distinction would be that the engineering challenges don't require a material that may not even exist/ be possible.

If an engine will only work if pixe dust exists, and pixie dust doesn't exist, then its not an engineering challenge, now is it?

[Vexillar]

So long as Kerbals can reverse the polarity of the Neutron flow, I'll be happy.

Spoiler

Yes, I know.  If this doesn't make sense, Your- favourite-search-engine it.

 

[TBenz]

If there is currently serious research occuring with the goal of establishing the viability of a technology, and that technology would not defy any known physical laws, then I would consider that technology as suitable for KSP2.

[Soda Popinski]

9 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What is a "pixie dust rocket"?

It's KerikBalm code for Metallic Hydrogen.

[snip]

Edited July 22, 2020 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

False equivalence. All things you listed are quantitative differences.

And, at the end of the day, "pixie dust" engines are just the same, just some other engine working just like a chemical engine but with some quantitative differences in performance and some "that's how it works in the Kerbal Universe" text in the description, it would be another thing altogether if it were some sort of Elite Dangerous's FDS.

To avoid "misinforming" people you just place a "IRL doesn't work like that" in the same list of the other 10 or so such "realism crimes" present in the game.

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

@Bej Kerman  The distinction would be that the engineering challenges don't require a material that may not even exist/ be possible.

If an engine will only work if pixe dust exists, and pixie dust doesn't exist, then its not an engineering challenge, now is it?

Let me rephrase myself, doesn't making metastable MH count as an engineering challenge?

[snip] - something that doesn't exist as opposed to metastable MH, something that might exist.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[shdwlrd]

I didn't vote for anything, but KSP is a GAME based on reality; not a true space flight simulator. So if the devs want to sidestep or ignore some elements of reality to make a better playing game, so be it. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a fuel source or technology is truly viable or not. As long as KSP2 is fun to play and entertaining, that's all that matters. 

[KerikBalm]

[snip]

I'm trying to avoid bias by not using a hot button example.

I would hope categories are voted for on their description, not any particular example, so that there is a more objective assessment of the general idea of what belongs.

What category any particular engine belongs to is for another thread

Edited July 22, 2020 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Guest]

Change that to Unobtainium. It's less negative and a well enough established concept in SF to end up called that in Avatar. Come to think of it, they used it for power there, too.

Besides, based on the balance of 4 versus 5, people seem to think it's a sliding scale anyway.

24 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I didn't vote for anything, but...

Then I suppose you don't want any of these, and for KSP2 to stick to chemical and NTR propulsion.  No vote is also a vote, here or anywhere else.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

And, at the end of the day, "pixie dust" engines are just the same, just some other engine working just like a chemical engine but with some quantitative differences in performance and some "that's how it works in the Kerbal Universe" text in the description, it would be another thing altogether if it were some sort of Elite Dangerous's FDS.

Wrong again. Numbers don't matter. Yes, you can make an engine with the same stats and it would work the same. What matters is that KSP says some technology is possible, when it isn't. Again, "realism crimes" of KSP are quantitative. Reaction wheels are possible. Unobtaininum is not. That the former are too powerful for their size and mass is less of a problem.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[KerikBalm]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Let me rephrase myself, doesn't making metastable MH count as an engineering challenge?

No, it doesn't, and this is going off topic

[snip]

And the whole point is that it is something for which there is no evidence for its existence, and ample evidence against its existence, but not beyond any doubt

 

And I realized that I can edit the poll without voiding the results. It now says Unobtanium

Edited July 22, 2020 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Then I suppose you don't want any of these, and for KSP2 to stick to chemical and NTR propulsion.  No vote is also a vote, here or anywhere else.

Nope, no vote could mean anything, especially since this poll is obviously biased.

For once I don't care about how realistic the tech behind the engines is, just their performance and if they feel overpowered in the game's balance, this point of view isn't taken into account in the options which, in all its options, is just a slightly more complex "Are you against metallic hydrogen or do you want this game to be a fantasy game?" question.

21 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Wrong again. Numbers don't matter. Yes, you can make an engine with the same stats and it would work the same. What matters is that KSP says some technology is possible, when it isn't. Again, "realism crimes" of KSP are quantitative. Reaction wheels are possible. Unobtaininum is not. That the former are too powerful for their size and mass is less of a problem.

Is any engine with performances remotely similar (within the already large margins conceded for scale and reaction wheels) to these engines possible? Yes.

That's why numbers matter for me and that's where the important part ends for me, Pixie Dust, Metallic Hydrogen, Eve's Explodium, I don't care about what the flavor text says.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Master39 said:

That's why numbers matter for me and that's where the important part ends for me, Pixie Dust, Metallic Hydrogen, Eve's Explodium, I don't care about what the flavor text says.

I get it, you don't want to broaden your horizons, and that's fine.   However, that doesn't change the fact other people do read the "flavor text". Are you fine with them being deceived by something that doesn't affect your gameplay? KSP is far more than just a game for some.

19 hours ago, Master39 said:

Nope, no vote could mean anything.

But it's still a vote, usually to let others decide in your stead. It doesn't matter what you "mean" by your voting, what people can see is the vote total. 

[shdwlrd]

28 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Then I suppose you don't want any of these, and for KSP2 to stick to chemical and NTR propulsion.  No vote is also a vote, here or anywhere else.

I don't care what engines or technology the devs use or make up. I only care if the physics are as similar to what you would expect to happen.