Flight Automation

[Vanamonde]

Some crankiness removed. Please don't accuse the other side of an argument of trolling. Even if it's true it doesn't tend to improve the tone of the conversation. 

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

The same will happen to KSP, flying is a core pillar of the game, the central part of most challenges, making it optional means replacing that pillar with something else.

 

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

I'm specifically talking about "hands off" autopilots that remove taking off, landing, docking and doing randezvous from the game as required skills for the players.

Not completely replacing, just progressively making it less manually intensive, after doing the thing a couple of times. Like SAS / target hold in KSP1, or maneuver nodes (would you play the game if you had to calculate orbits, targets and burn times?)

Edited November 9, 2022 by Vl3d

[regex]

My thoughts need more than a poll.

Milk runs and supply stuff for colonies should be assumed once they're set up, I shouldn't even have to think about that, or maybe just setup a cargo ship that can make the trip and call it good. Flying that crap is boring.

Basic SAS and heading hold, as well as pointing towards any of the six basic directions, should be a given from the start of play. That's basic flight stuff which any kerbal should be able to do, it's like all the stuff you learn before you fly on a Soyuz. Having those as unlocks is just dumb progression for the sake of progression, it makes no sense.

Planes and rovers should be smart about holding the heading, they should attempt to retain the same inclination/trim relative to the horizon so they don't just keep climbing (for instance). Maybe some sort of SAS toggle for aircraft mode or something. Rovers are a bit more complicated there, I feel, since terrain-following is much more complex problem.

My big thing is that the throttle shouldn't be in control of the computer, that should be player-controlled as much as possible (unless it gets shut off for a certain reason). That means no automated maneuver node execution or landing, for instance. Why? Because it adds an element of randomness to the game. We don't have engine explosions, delays on the pad, equipment failures, weather, and so on. Throttle control is one of the few ways we introduce the possibility of failure.

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's not the subject being discussed.

The flight automation is that subject.
It's one of its applications.

The unmanned probes as well.
Nobody sends them in manual control mode, unless it's Lunokhod.

KSP is not just a pilot simulator, it's a craft designer simulator as well.
The automatic flight control is an important part of any spacecraft design irl.

Just think: even SpaceX doesn't land their rockets manually.
They use flight automation.

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

What is it going to be? A crappy version of Surviving Mars? Yet another clone of Factorio? A discount Oxygen Not Included?

Whatever you are going to do with it, in any way the game engine allows, stock or modded.

[Pthigrivi]

After all this time Ive felt honestly more compelled by @shdwlrd’s arguments toward inclusivity than by the purist ‘git gud’ caucus. Like if these tools are available and some people use them and others choose not to for literally any reason is anyone really harmed? Say you had to spend science on leveling up full autoland capabilities. So… you can just not invest in that and instead put those points into new parts and other upgrades?  This is utterly harmless to everyone involved, and could potentially open up lots of new styles of gameplay for all those people who don’t have quick fingers. 
 

And not to open up (okay yeah I did) another can of worms but @t_v and I had a solid debate about the kerbal class system and I remain unconvinced Pilots have any value without a leg up on autopilot capabilities. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

After all this time Ive felt honestly more compelled by @shdwlrd’s arguments toward inclusivity

It doesn't have anything to do with inlcusivity.

At best we're talking about accessibility but even then is a hypocritical argument to have. For every one person not playing because they don't want to learn how to land 99 are left out because they're not going to learn orbital mechanics for a game.

 

The "holier-than-thou" mentality is infuriating, especially since I'm just drawing my line in the sand 5 cm away from yours in a 5km long argument. I'm sure that if I suggested to remove all orbital mechanics and implement a "industry standard" flight model like ED, NMS or Space Engineers to make the game more accessible the community wouldn't react well.

And if we're talking about  accessibility I'm not opposed at all to add an autopilot suite you can enable under the accessibility option in the menu, with all the bell and whistles of such a feature, maybe even an auto-builder for crafts.

The important part for me is that this thing remains as far as possible from the intended gameplay and balance of the game, that "in this flight sim flying is optional" isn't the first thing shoved in a new player face when they open up the game.

 

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Like if these tools are available and some people use them and others choose not to for literally any reason is anyone really harmed? Say you had to spend science on leveling up full autoland capabilities. So… you can just not invest in that and instead put those points into new parts and other upgrades?  This is utterly harmless to everyone involved, and could potentially open up lots of new styles of gameplay for all those people who don’t have quick fingers.

It shifts away the focus from the "build and fly" core gameplay loop, again, it already happened with Elite Dangerous. What harm can an autopilot do? Well today having a spaceship in Elite Dangerous, the spaceship flying sim, is optional, given that the dev team spent the past 3 years developing an FPS DLC. You wanted something new on the whole "flying a spaceship" part of the game? Well, too bad, that's just an optional activity now, you're stuck with the same exact content you had 2, 4 and 6 years ago.

 

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

This is utterly harmless to everyone involved, and could potentially open up lots of new styles of gameplay for all those people who don’t have quick fingers. 

We discussed this at nauseam, the main problem is not quick fingers, the main problem is the unwillingness to make compromises. People want to manually do a bullseye landing with a suicide burn at first attempt, from orbit, without correction maneuvers along the way and without overshooting.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's not the subject being discussed.

The flight automation is that subject.
It's one of its applications.

The unmanned probes as well.
Nobody sends them in manual control mode, unless it's Lunokhod.

KSP is not just a pilot simulator, it's a craft designer simulator as well.
The automatic flight control is an important part of any spacecraft design irl.

Just think: even SpaceX doesn't land their rockets manually.
They use flight automation.

You've misunderstood the subject then. We were never talking about probe cores; we were talking about the game playing itself. My previous statement still stands, the discussion of whether you should use probe cores or not is irrelevant.

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, Master39 said:

It doesn't have anything to do with inlcusivity.

At best we're talking about accessibility but even then is a hypocritical argument to have. For every one person not playing because they don't want to learn how to land 99 are left out because they're not going to learn orbital mechanics for a game.

 

The "holier-than-thou" mentality is infuriating, especially since I'm just drawing my line in the sand 5 cm away from yours in a 5km long argument. I'm sure that if I suggested to remove all orbital mechanics and implement a "industry standard" flight model like ED, NMS or Space Engineers to make the game more accessible the community wouldn't react well.

And if we're talking about  accessibility I'm not opposed at all to add an autopilot suite you can enable under the accessibility option in the menu, with all the bell and whistles of such a feature, maybe even an auto-builder for crafts.

The important part for me is that this thing remains as far as possible from the intended gameplay and balance of the game, that "in this flight sim flying is optional" isn't the first thing shoved in a new player face when they open up the game.

 

It shifts away the focus from the "build and fly" core gameplay loop, again, it already happened with Elite Dangerous. What harm can an autopilot do? Well today having a spaceship in Elite Dangerous, the spaceship flying sim, is optional, given that the dev team spent the past 3 years developing an FPS DLC. You wanted something new on the whole "flying a spaceship" part of the game? Well, too bad, that's just an optional activity now, you're stuck with the same exact content you had 2, 4 and 6 years ago.

 

We discussed this at nauseam, the main problem is not quick fingers, the main problem is the unwillingness to make compromises. People want to manually do a bullseye landing with a suicide burn at first attempt, from orbit, without correction maneuvers along the way and without overshooting.

Yes, yes and yes

The accessibility argument is null anyway since it's well in Intercept's power to just add slow-motion time warp increments. Even if it doesn't end up in KSP 2, modders will add it in like they did with KSP 1 (see: dynamic time warp, better time warp). Autopilot doesn't make the game more accessible, it just makes accessing the game redundant when you can be off making coffee while the game plays itself. Timewarp increments below 1 do increase accessibility because you no longer need quick reaction times to do certain tasks like land rockets and stage at precise altitudes.

[t_v]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

It doesn't have anything to do with inlcusivity.

At best we're talking about accessibility

Can we not argue over semantics? The meaning is that more people will be able to experience the game. Call that what you want, I’ll call it accessibility personally. 

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

For every one person not playing because they don't want to learn how to land 99 are left out because they're not going to learn orbital mechanics for a game.

The difference is that excluding orbital mechanics is excluding a lot of mechanics that are central to the game. The “wasd” mechanic may be in the PC experience, but in console versions it is replaced by the “joystick” mechanic. Flying a specific way has never been core to KSP, in fact the way that people fly differently is one of the things that makes KSP so special. 
 

Take gravity turns for example. Someone spends a bit of time to set up a turn and let’s the rocket do the rest. I love that, it requires clever design, a knowledge of rocketry, and a good decision on when and how to initiate the turn. But this is significantly less manual flying than the heat-capped manual ascents that I like. Does this cut gameplay? No. The orbital mechanics are still there, the design is still there, the same decisions are being made on how the rocket should be moving, but now the only input required is pressing a button that locks the spaceship to prograde, which is essentially a small autopilot function. 

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

maybe even an auto-builder for crafts.

I’m not sure this is serious, but I’ll take this to demonstrate a key difference that I think you are missing. If there were a button that constructs a full craft for you with any specified amount of dV in one click, I would not want that in the game. It doesn’t teach the players anything and they aren’t making decisions. 
 

However, if the auto-builder did things like take a stage and extend it to match a certain dV target, and then ask “do you want 0 fins, 2, 4, 6, or 8 on this stage?” And then lead the player step by step towards building the rocket, going through a checklist with electrical, thermals, control, parachutes, etc. I would be happy including that in the game. The player is making the same decisions on how to design their craft, they are learning how to properly include everything they need, and eventually will be able to remember and implement those systems without needing the auto-builder tool. 
 

The point that you have missed is that there are different types of autopilot. Simplifying the flight model isn’t providing autopilot, and Elite Dangerous’s autopilot is a very different autopilot to the one that @shdwlrd is talking about. 

18 hours ago, Master39 said:

19 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

What I'm not advocating for is removing the player from the decision making process. Just removing/reducing the physical skill required. 

I subscribed that school of thought for Elite Dangerous

And, forcing the conversation into one about full hands-off autopilot (that no one really wants) is just dodging the discussion of actual, educational autopilot. 

 

18 hours ago, Master39 said:

Disclaimer: I'm not talking against automated routine flights or QOL features like a heading/altitude hold for planes.

I'm specifically talking about "hands off" autopilots that remove taking off, landing, docking and doing randezvous from the game as required skills for the players.

Rendez-vous is not a skill that is determined by how lightly you can tap the RCS buttons, it is a skill that is learned through application of orbital mechanics. An autopilot that walks you through the steps to complete a rendezvous then does the burn for you still puts you in control of the flight and educates you on how orbital mechanics works. A good game autopilot will eventually make itself useless for most players. Also, for the concern that it removes failures - inputting that maneuver node is still a point of failure because you can only be so precise with it. 
 

The point is that automatic functions don’t have to remove gameplay. Players can still make the same decisions and learn the same things about spaceflight, but with someone there to help them and remove the skill factor. And later, some players that needs the autopilot will be able to complete missions without it, and the players that really need it will still have it. 

[regex]

4 minutes ago, t_v said:

And later, some players that needs the autopilot will be able to complete missions without it

Why would you ever stop using the autopilot? What you've just introduced will be considered part of the core gameplay experience.

[t_v]

12 minutes ago, regex said:

Why would you ever stop using the autopilot? What you've just introduced will be considered part of the core gameplay experience.

For fun. People here seem to prefer flying manually, even though we all have the option to download MechJeb and use it for everything. I certainly prefer flying manually. Also, this wouldn’t be core. It would be an optional setting or unlock, and only people who need the assist would use it; very few people who can do the game normally will ever touch the autopilot. I apologize if I made it seem like this would be the central gameplay; if you can point to that spot I’d be happy to correct it. I would rather see more people stick with KSP through the use of an autopilot than leave the game in frustration because they can’t learn orbital mechanics through initial pack of skill.

I also just realized this argument is akin to “why would anyone turn off the spike immunity in Celeste?” Because they want the challenge and it is better that way. 

[Dafni]

15 hours ago, regex said:

My thoughts need more than a poll.

Milk runs and supply stuff for colonies should be assumed once they're set up, I shouldn't even have to think about that, or maybe just setup a cargo ship that can make the trip and call it good. Flying that crap is boring.

Basic SAS and heading hold, as well as pointing towards any of the six basic directions, should be a given from the start of play. That's basic flight stuff which any kerbal should be able to do, it's like all the stuff you learn before you fly on a Soyuz. Having those as unlocks is just dumb progression for the sake of progression, it makes no sense.

Planes and rovers should be smart about holding the heading, they should attempt to retain the same inclination/trim relative to the horizon so they don't just keep climbing (for instance). Maybe some sort of SAS toggle for aircraft mode or something. Rovers are a bit more complicated there, I feel, since terrain-following is much more complex problem.

My big thing is that the throttle shouldn't be in control of the computer, that should be player-controlled as much as possible (unless it gets shut off for a certain reason). That means no automated maneuver node execution or landing, for instance. Why? Because it adds an element of randomness to the game. We don't have engine explosions, delays on the pad, equipment failures, weather, and so on. Throttle control is one of the few ways we introduce the possibility of failure.

I second this! Each and every statement, in fact.

The randomness element of manual throttle is an excellent point.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, t_v said:

The “wasd” mechanic may be in the PC experience, but in console versions it is replaced by the “joystick” mechanic.

WASD and joystick are just two way of doing the same thing, manually flying.

I hope that KSP2 has good HOTAS support, because I plan to use mine with it.

At risk of being accused again or talking about semantics please keep the discussion focused, the argument is about manually flying, not about which control scheme you prefer.

I have nothing about joysticks.

 

21 minutes ago, t_v said:

And, forcing the conversation into one about full hands-off autopilot (that no one really wants)

I've put a full disclaimer about what I'm arguing against.

If you don't want an autopilot that can land, dock or orbit for you then we agree.

If you don't think that an autopilot that lands, docks or orbits for you is not an hand-off autopilot then you are probably using a different definition of "hands-off autopilot"

If your only input is telling the craft were to land, orbit or dock then it's an hands-off autopilot, and a big no-no for me.

25 minutes ago, t_v said:

Rendez-vous is not a skill that is determined by how lightly you can tap the RCS buttons,

Which is a completely arbitrary difference and a completely arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing based on your personal experience with the game.

If you exclude rendezvous from the autopilot then you're still making the game not accessible for most of the people you cut off by not having an autopilot.

The specific player niche willing to learn orbital mechnics and space navigation for a game but unwilling to learn how to fly manually its the smallest niche I can possibly think of.

 

31 minutes ago, t_v said:

The point is that automatic functions don’t have to remove gameplay.

Flying manually is half of the main gameplay loop of KSP, if you automate it you're turning a core pillar of the game into an hardcore option buried somewhere in the options.

It's just like saying that adding warfare and guns doesn't change the gameplay of you don't want to. The mere shift in focus and balance is going to radically change everything.

They said they're designing new planets as little landing and navigating puzzles. I'm hoping that there isn't a "with an autopilot" between the lines in there.

 

Think of colonies, landing precisely at them is going to be the main design consideration when building and flying landers, it's a whole new layer of gameplay, possible dedicated parts, navigational equipment, and skills to learn.

Since we have runway parts why not arresting cables and hooks, catapults, maybe even ILS Beacons and other infrastructure stuff you can set up for later automated landings.

All of that gameplay wouldn't even be considered if autolanding and autodocking is the default for the game.

[regex]

17 minutes ago, t_v said:

For fun.

Are we going to have Steam achievements for flying manually?

17 minutes ago, t_v said:

Also, this wouldn’t be core. It would be an optional setting or unlock, and only people who need the assist would use it

As an opt-in setting, fine. As part of a tutorial, fine. As an unlock, please, for the love of all that is holy in this world and the next twelve, no. No, no, no. No more progression for progression's sake. It's the most braindead, boring gameplay ever thought up. Unlocking SAS is the stupidest thing ever introduced to this game. It teaches nothing and it frustrates everyone.

17 minutes ago, t_v said:

if you can point to that spot I’d be happy to correct it.

Sorry, I haven't been following this part of the argument closely because it's seriously in the weeds. Your statement just caught my eye because if an autopilot is at any point offered and used preferentially to manual flight, it will be the preferred method going forward.

17 minutes ago, t_v said:

I also just realized this argument is akin to “why would anyone turn off the spike immunity in Celeste?” Because they want the challenge and it is better that way. 

I'm a big fan of the Miyazaki method of game design after playing Elden Ring (my first Souls game, btw): the core experience should be the same for everyone. However, I am not opposed to an opt-in autopilot, or mods, or people playing in that way.

[Vl3d]

17 minutes ago, Master39 said:

All of that gameplay wouldn't even be considered if autolanding and autodocking is the default for the game.

It should be point-to-point autopilot unlocked as late game tech only for previously flown craft and mission profiles.

Look, I have big plans for crafts and colonies.. I really don't have time to waste flying the same rocket to orbit 10 times in a row. It's grindy.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Vl3d

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

It should be point-to-point autopilot unlocked as late game tech only for previously flown craft and mission profiles.

Look, I have big plans for crafts and colonies.. I really don't have time to waste flying the same rocket to orbit 10 times in a row. It's grindy.

Can you please read the comments of people you reply to?

I've already said, specifically to you, that I'm not talking about the supply route system at least 10 times.

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

Can we not argue over semantics? The meaning is that more people will be able to experience the game. Call that what you want, I’ll call it accessibility personally. 

Refer to the comment I made. It's not accessibility if the player doesn't need to access the game - autopilot does this. Accessibility would be something like, as I said, slow motion time warp that lets anyone pilot anything without needing super reaction times. The player still has to be here at every step of the journey in order to carry something out the first time before the game gives them the option to automate their route.

[Gargamel]

Since we’ve decided to not play nice with each other, this thread has been locked.