Missions & Tutorials Feedback Megathread

[steveman0]

I don't think about ejection angle. I just ensure ejection is aligned with planetary prograde or retrograde on escape. I think that's good enough not to worry about angle to the nearest degree.

[The Aziz]

20 minutes ago, regex said:

Are you talking about phase angle? Because that is very important, that's the relationship between the two planets and where they are in their orbits.

Ejection angle is like you say "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" but since you can drag the maneuver node on the orbit knowing what it is exactly isn't an issue (compared to phase angle, for instance, which is crucial). It is very easy to set up a basic interplanetary maneuver and then fine-tune the ejection angle, and that was my whole point. Your rule of thumb there is about all you really need to know once you grasp how to manipulate maneuver nodes.

Most external tools give me the date of a transfer window. I can just warp to that date and my phase angle is set. But then, even when I'm in the right place in time, I often have a hard time getting an encounter (last time it was Dres), and I don't know if it's because my d-v calculations are wrong (doubt it, as I dragged all nodes back and forth many times) or perhaps the position of the node is in the wrong place.

Hohmann transfer is a simple equation, A(phase angle/transfer window)+B(ejection angle)+C(deltav of the burn) gives D(a successful encounter with another planet). Ideally you want to be sure of at least two (A and B), so you can fiddle with the third. When you don't know two of them, problems arise, and you may spend hours trying to set up a maneuver without success.

So it's partially about the tutorials (telling what the ejection angle is, it should be a part of interplanetary travel tutorial), and UI (actually showing the ejection angle of a node).

[regex]

23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Most external tools give me the date of a transfer window. I can just warp to that date and my phase angle is set. But then, even when I'm in the right place in time, I often have a hard time getting an encounter (last time it was Dres), and I don't know if it's because my d-v calculations are wrong (doubt it, as I dragged all nodes back and forth many times) or perhaps the position of the node is in the wrong place.

It's basically like setting up a rendezvous with another craft, you'll see the intercept markers and can adjust from there. Once you get it close you can adjust the ejection angle by dragging the node to fine-tune.

Dres is a notoriously hard target to hit, sometimes you'll want to wait for the next transfer window (which will be closer to AN/DN) or use a correction burn at the AN/DN of your transfer orbit.

23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

So it's partially about the tutorials (telling what the ejection angle is, it should be a part of interplanetary travel tutorial), and UI (actually showing the ejection angle of a node).

Again, I don't think ejection angle is needed at all beyond your mnemonic about which side to plan the burn from, it's very easy to adjust by eyeball. Instead what I feel we need are tutorials which explain concepts like correction burns, AN/DN, interpreting the intercept information, and what all that means for getting an intercept, plus better tools for manipulating the maneuver node.

[Westinghouse]

3 hours ago, regex said:

I had relatively little problem landing near the target on Duna but I've played a ton of KSP1. (Pro-tip to any newbies reading, Duna doesn't have enough atmosphere to really mess up your trajectory, what you're really compensating for is planetary rotation, and you really only have to aim slightly ahead of the target).

This is a great point.
In the recent dev streams of them landing on Duna, they're using a combination of wings and parachutes to try and perform a precision landing. Seems like they're just making it harder for themselves.

3 hours ago, regex said:

3. Emphasize missions that are optional or can be slept on better. Emphasize that self-direction is perfectly fine and expected. This is and always has been a sandbox game, promote it as such! If you put in a series of missions then people are going to think that's the game rather than look around for other things to do that can gain them expertise.

Very well put! This is a very important point - at the moment the player is being handed the locations of the mission destinations on a plate.  It makes the current mission layout just a sort of 'follow the paths to the monuments'. I completely get why the Developers wanted to do this - they were probably super eager to show off all the cool artwork they've built, but it gets boring pretty fast. It's been mentioned plenty, but a mission system like SCANsat would be excellent to allow players to discover the monuments and biomes themselves.

3 hours ago, regex said:

I've railed against the dumb idea that Kerbals have to follow the U.S. path into space before and you guys are doing a good job making them their own thing rather than a reflection of U.S.-centric thinking.

What exactly is so dumb about following the U.S. path, out of interest?
It seems to me like a nice set of incremental steps, each mission slowly building on the experience gained from the previous.

Reach space on a suborbital launch - Freedom 7
Reach Earth orbit - Friendship 7
Perform an EVA - Gemini 4
Perform a rendezvous - Gemini 6/7
Perform a docking - Gemini 8
Leave Earth's influence and orbit the moon - Apollo 8
Land on the moon - Apollo 11
Perform a precision landing on the moon - Apollo 12
Drive around on the moon - Apollo 15
Build a space station - Skylab

Obviously the mission plan doesn't have to follow this exactly, KSP2's currently skips the rendezvous and docking for example. But it seems to me like a good series of steps to introduce a new player to space flight within the Kerbin system before heading out to Duna. As opposed to the soviets who appeared to have skipped the suborbital step and later went straight to space stations. Other mission happens can happen at the same time in parallel of course, for example sending unmanned probes out to pass by and collect science from Duna and Jool before heading there with live Kerbals. This also removes the complications of having to bring Kerbals back. Something I've noticed from a few recorded playthroughs on YouTube is that a lot of newer players seem comfortable just leaving their Kerbals stranded on the surface of Eve or Laythe (this is something I absolutely never did in the original game, I always made sure to be able to bring my guys back home).

[regex]

12 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

What exactly is so dumb about following the U.S. path, out of interest?

The U.S. path to space isn't dumb, people just seem to think that Kerbals should use probes first and start with SRBs instead of liquid motors. Kerbals are Kerbals, they can do things their own way, they don't need to follow human historical precedence (which has already shown us there are other paths to space anyway).

Edited February 9 by regex

[The Aziz]

6 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

First probe in orbit - Explorer 1
Probe in solar orbit - Pioneer 4
Reach space on a suborbital launch - Freedom 7
Reach Earth orbit - Friendship 7
First probe to visit Venus - Mariner 2
First probe to visit Mars - Mariner 4
Perform an EVA - Gemini 4
Perform a rendezvous - Gemini 6/7
Perform a docking - Gemini 8
Leave Earth's influence and orbit the moon - Apollo 8
Land on the moon - Apollo 11
Perform a precision landing on the moon - Apollo 12
First probe to orbit Mars - Mariner 9
Drive around on the moon - Apollo 15
First probe to visit Jupiter and fly away to interstellar space - Pioneer 10
First probe to visit Saturn - Pioneer 11
Build a space station - Skylab

Fixed a few things for ya because you didn't mention unmanned missions. And if you look at Soviet program, it gets even weirder.

With that, should we really be sending probes towards Eve and Duna before we set out for the Mun?

[Westinghouse]

6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Fixed a few things for ya because you didn't mention unmanned missions. And if you look at Soviet program, it gets even weirder.

With that, should we really be sending probes towards Eve and Duna before we set out for the Mun?

Hmmm, I would say no. The reason is if a player launches a probe interplanetary, their instinct is to immediately time warp ahead to when that probe arrives. In that whole period of months of time warp, they're effectively discouraged from taking on any missions in the Kerbin system, unless they have some sort of Alarm Clock mod. Going interplanetary too early means the player loses focus on Kerbin/Mun/Minmus missions, which I think form an excellent playground environment for training new players in spaceflight.

Of course, It's a sandbox game , like @regex says- the player is perfectly free to do anything they want! But the cultivated primary missions created by the developer to introduce new player to the game I think should be targeted at small incremental steps within the Kerbin system at first. Going straight to a precision landing on Duna immediately after Minmus is just too much. It risks scaring off newer players. The original game 'gated' this in a very nice way by limiting the KerbNet strength until enough funds could be gained from missions in the Kerbin system to boost the signal strength (I don't know if KSP2 is has a working KerbNet, I understand they're using a similar signal strength system in Kitbash Model Club).

49 minutes ago, regex said:

Kerbals are Kerbals, they can do things their own way, they don't need to follow human historical precedence (which has already shown us there are other paths to space anyway).

I mean, yes, there are endless paths to take. It's part of the reason KSP is such a superb game format. But for the primary missions the Devs need to narrow down on one route to ease in new players. I just think the U.S. incremental route is best. Doing it the crazy Soviet way seems wrong - for example they failed to master docking before starting on space stations and a lot of the early Salyut missions failed. They also left that poor dog to die up there.

[Cyal]

Suggestions for a mission progression.

What i have read, and also feel is, that the mission and progression system should do 3 things:

1. Teach you more and more advanced concepts.
2. Give a realistic approach to spaceflight
3. Guide you trough a story.

I think the developers already did a really good job with another point in mind: gameplay - fast progression and challenges. I think that works well with experienced players but may discourage new players. Precision landing on Mun that early is tough! I would absolutely love a fine tuned mission model with a milestone approach: "Our next Goal is to reach X. Mission Y and Z will lead us to that goal, but you can directly try this Mission X."

For a few things to work, i think Kerbals must have some specific insight that can only generate specific science with a Kerbal not with a probe. But more on that later.

My suggestion for a mission progression:

Chapter 0: The beginning - teaches core concepts to progress into the game.
Target Milestone: "Let's get a Kerbal into Orbit and back."

Reach an altitude of X	(Probe or Kerbal)	basics
Leave the atmosphere	(Probe)	reentry is deadly
Leave the atmosphere and reenter safely	(Kerbal)	recover your Kerbals
Orbit around Kerbin	(Probe)	space is not orbit & gather science
Orbit around Kerbin and reenter safely	(Kerbal)	gather science and return it - how to reenter safely / Kerbals are valuable

Chapter 1: Outwards bound
Target Milestone: "Land a Kerbal on the Mun and return savely."

Flyby the Mun	(Probe)	basic transfers
Flyby the Mun and return	(Kerbal)	transfers and return, heat multiplies with speed
Orbit around Mun	(Probe)	slowing down is also acceleration
Orbit around Mun and return	(Kerbal)	bring enough fuel
Land on Mun	(Probe)	soft propulsive touchdown
Land on Mun and return	(Kerbal)	bring enough fuel! Seriously

Chapter 2: We found something strange. Let's investigate. - Gets into the Story and teaches advanced mechanics.
Target Milestone: "Explore Mun and Minmus"

Polar Orbit around Mun	(Probe with specific antenna)	reach a specific Orbit
Land at Mun Monument	(Kerbal)	precision landing
Polar Orbit around Minmus	(Probe with specific antenna)	reach a target with an inclination change
Land at Minmus Monument	(Kerbal)	precision landing at higher latitudes & low gravity EVA

Chapter 3: What is out there?
Target Milestone: "Explore the near Kerbolar System"

Flyby Duna	(Probe)	Kerbin escape angle, leave Kerbin SOI / reach another SOI
Land on Duna and return	(Kerbal)	atmosphere does not mean you can just use chutes & interplanetary reentry velocities
Polar Orbit Duna	(Probe with specific antenna)	interplanetary communication & story progression
Land at Duna monument and return	(Kerbal)	precision landing through atmosphere
Flyby Eve	(Probe)	inner planets need another escape angle & interplanetary inclination
Land on Eve	(Probe)	an atmosphere is not necessarily your friend
Land on Eve and return	(Probe)	this atmosphere is really not your friend
Flyby Moho	(Probe)	Kerbols gravity well
Polar Orbit Moho	(Probe)	how much dV do i need to get a capture? Yes!

Chapter 4: Wait there is more!
Target Milestone: "Explore the far Kerbolar System - to Jool"

Story and Progression to Jool etc. - swing by maneuvers at Tylo, hydrogen fuel etc.

Chapter 5: The advanced Stuff!
Target Milestone: "Send a Rover to Eeloo"

All the other Bodies, docking and Sending Rovers everywhere.

I think you should get the discoverable missions only after you have a satellite in a polar orbit.
That teaches you a little bit more about the needed dV requirements to actually GET there not only FlyBy the object.
But that has to be counterweight with an interesting Story progression.
Here lies a great divide between realism and gameplay... after having sent 2-3 polar satellites one can assume you can do it again, and don't have to be forced to actually DO it again and again. Personally i'm playing the game that way. But would not want to force this on every player.

Kerbals and Science.

I loved that in KSP1 You could really amplify your science with local laboratories. That made it necessary to get Kerbals out there. But that’s more complicated ... so maybe - for starters - surface samples, collected by a Kerbal yield much more science?

Every Mission with a Kerbal is much more challenging because of sample return with a higher mass. The feeling to care for the Kerbals and want to get them home safely is one of the strongest i feel, playing the game.

This can and should be amplified by reintroducing Milestones and achievements for Kerbals, a mission log and maybe experience…

A memorial Board could solve all these Things:
First Kerbal set foot on the Mun ...
First Kerbals leaving Kerbins SOI ...
First Kerbal missing in Space ...

These achievements could yield science that the same mission with a probe would not.

Oh and …. pleeeeease integrate the Orbital Survey mod, or something similar. It really helps in progression and getting to know the locations. Suddenly they are not noisy colored plates but have a specific name, and I can locate and find them again .

Edited February 11 by Cyal
Tables and Readability

[Snark]

25 minutes ago, Cyal said:

My suggestion for a mission progression

Nice ideas, and really nicely written up and organized! Thank you for sharing.

[Dakitess]

I've wrote a bunch of Tutorials and Missions for KSP1 and I like to alternate between :

- Construction tutorials : your first rocket for instance

- Navigation tutorials : manoeuver nodes for instance

- Specific skill tutorial : RCS placement and docking for instance

- Milestone missions : to the mun and back

 

My KSP1 global tutorial was planned with theses chapters :

0) Presentation and hands on KSP

1) The basis of rocket design

2) Lift-Off, orbiting and Gravity Turn

3) Manoeuvers Nodes and basic transfer

4) To the mun and back (1st Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ----------------

5) Design a station and its modules (introduce the docking and thus the RCS placements)

6) Rendez-vous and Docking

7) The logic of interplanetary Transfer

8) To Duna and back (2nd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) -------------------

9) How to build and control a basic plane

10) How to build an SSTO and the ideal path to orbit

11) The atmospheric Reentry

12) To Laythe and back (3rd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) -----------------

And I did not get any further but we would have some Advanced Rocket Design (aesthetic, performance optimization, etc), Advanced Orbital mechanic (Oberth effect, Bi-elliptical rather than Hohmann, Gravity Assist, etc), Buoyancy and boat crafting,  etc.

 

I wish we had something like this in KSP2, with more intermediate missions, more distincts chapter, some repetition, etc.

[Planterium]

I do not think people realize that a complete Beginner might find it near impossible to go to other Planets than Kerbin. How come there are no tutorials for Interplanetary transfers?

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, Planterium said:

I do not think people realize that a complete Beginner might find it near impossible to go to other Planets than Kerbin. How come there are no tutorials for Interplanetary transfers?

Because they've not written them yet.

[MirageNL]

Lots of good ideas. A different kind of problem is that the Training Center is pretty much an isolated part of the game. Early tutorials will be either too easy for experienced players, causing them to quit the TC before learning something new, never to return; or players will tend to play through all the tutorials in one go, providing too much information at once and causing them to forget stuff before having a chance to use it in the actual game. Therefore, I think tutorials would work better as an integrated part of the mission structure, providing all the relevant information bit-by-bit. Play a clip when accepting a new primary mission, then unlock the tutorials at the TC and add an optional shortcut to go there to practice the new mechanic.

Possible mission structure could look like this:

1. Launch a rocket: how do rockets work?
2. Get to space: learn about moving in a vacuum and re-entry heating
3. Achieve orbit: missing the ground
4. Specific orbit: orbits are weird
5. Mun flyby: orbital transfers
6. Mun landing: learn about landing and launching in a vacuum
7. Mun Arch: learn to do a precise landing

These missions should cover all the basics. After that, the game should open up more. Like many others, I believe there is too much focus on the monuments after the Mun Arch. It makes further progression feel forced, while it should be up to the player what to do next. This could be done by offering multiple primary mission sequences, each focusing on a different aspect of spaceflight and each accompanied by appropriate tutorials:

• Exploration missions: learn about transfer windows, ejection angles, gravity assists/captures and aerobreaking. Example missions: land on Duna, enter Jool SOI, dive to location X on Laythe, return surface sample from Eve.
• LKO missions: learn about rendezvous, RCS and docking. Example missions: rescue a stranded Kerbal, remove debris from orbit, build a space station.
• Probe missions: learn about power demand, ComNet and Kerbnet (when implemented). Example missions: launch a probe to Keostationary orbit, establish a relay network around Kerbin, launch a polar survey probe.
• Plane missions: learn about lift, stability, effects of wing shape and air intakes. Example missions: fly a plane for X seconds, fly to location X, achieve a velocity of X m/s, fly to an altitude of X km, achieve orbit using a spaceplane (all while only using jet engines).

 

Maybe a bit off-topic, but I also think science progression should be linked more to the playstyle of the player. Now it's just collecting points by clicking an icon, but it doesn't make sense to unlock a Rapier engine while never having built a single plane, or learning anything about flight. Unlocking parts could be tied into the mission structure, where completing specific missions unlocks specific technologies. Another approach would be to link unlockables to certain achievements. Just launched an X ton rocket into orbit? Now you can unlock the Labradoodle for even bigger payloads. Just reached a height of X km with a plane? Now you can unlock the Rapier for even higher altitudes. Actually researching the technology could still cost science points, but it would now make more sense to have the option available. The prerequisites also provide the player with more challenges and it would actually feel earned to unlock a part.

[steveman0]

On 2/17/2024 at 7:03 PM, Planterium said:

I do not think people realize that a complete Beginner might find it near impossible to go to other Planets than Kerbin. How come there are no tutorials for Interplanetary transfers?

I suspect they plan to implement a transfer window planner / alarm clock directly into the game. When they do this, it will make sense the tutorial teaches how to use it specifically to plan a mission to Duna or elsewhere.