1:1 Planets?

[Fel]

No, it is not a "Technical Problem," it is a "Sales Problem."

For all those "play orbitor" comments, have you every played orbitor? My those graphics are top of the line right? 1:1 Textures!

I understand that people would tear KSP apart if they made things bigger without improving texture quality; such is the way of our society.

But at the end of the day, all we're talking about are a few numbers stored in a table.

I would suggest using my own tests to simulate a 1:1 Kerbin:Earth.

Go look up the EXACT specifications for a rocket,

Edit part.cfgs to provide said exact specifications... and divide ISP by ~ 2.17 (Delta-V's should become kerbin equivalents)

And what everyone is saying will be true. Launches will be longer... they'll be harder (unfortunately I don't know how to strengthen attachment nodes so you'll have problems there)... designing your own will be more difficult... getting to and back from the moon will no longer be a "tutorial" but an achievement (and to other planets... sheesh...)

Then you may decide that realism is a little overrated.

[Holo]

I've played orbiter, and if KSP was half as difficult as it, Squad would be short $15.

Saying that, I've had a lot of fun with Orbiter. Pretending to colonise a planet using the DGIV autopilot and the scenario editor is pretty fun, but most crafts are heavily overpowered compared to what you even come close to achieving in real life and kerbal space program.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Holo

[Canopus]

I've played orbiter, and if KSP was half as difficult as it, Squad would be short $15.

Saying that, I've had a lot of fun with Orbiter. Pretending to colonise a planet using the DGIV autopilot and the scenario editor is pretty fun, but most crafts are heavily overpowered compared to what you even come close to achieving in real life and kerbal space program.

Only the delta glider and a few mods are overpowered. The rest of the crafts are pretty realistic in terms of performance.

[Tom K.]

No, 1:1 planets aren't going to happen, ever.

In addition, it would just make the game a thousand times more difficult to detail and make planets for. Right now, a 4096x2048 color map is enough to give some nice detail for a Kerbin-sized planet 600 km in radius, but a planet 6000 km in radius? Unless you want a pixel to be the size of some small countries, you need to have MASSIVE textures, which would in turn make the game's size increase twentyfold...

Weren't the surface of planets generated?

It's just a question, I'm not trying to sound nitpicking...

[lyndonguitar]

KSP is a FUN video game and will stay that way.

Isn't a FUN video game, a fun video game about space is for example Dead Space or Mass Effect this is a simulative game, the only thing that change is it approach with the player

So KSP isn't fun?

It's fun because it change the approach with player difference to Orbiter

?!!??!?!?!?!

[Daze]

?!!??!?!?!?!

On my second quote it should be fun understood as arcade, my fault.

[Viper_607]

Creating larger planets and such only creates one thing: A larger game and more space, but doesn't add any content and given how the game has a focus on slight silliness/absurdity and explosive experimentation, there is no need to add anything that would increase the time things take to do, in fact, it would be damaging to a game that relies so much on the player to create good designs.

[Tom K.]

I was avoiding stating things that already had been said in this thread, but yes. 5 minutes to orbit vs 15 makes a lot of difference if you want to conduct lots of launches in succession, for example. Planets would get a lot more boring visually because, really, do you want to detail 197 million square miles of planetary surface? It's hard enough as it is with the tiny planets to make them fully detailed.

Everything about doing this would make everything more difficult. For players AND developers. And not in a good-difficulty challenging way, it would just make conducting anything more boring and time-consuming for the players, and VASTLY more time consuming for us.

As a dwarf fortress-player I'm used to long-term playing as everything takes time, there is a group of gamers who like to see slow yet steady process when they play.

As for the land-generation I think that you don't need extremely detailed landscape for it to look good, today I was playing around in 'Space Engine', I was on the moon of an exo-planet partially covered in ice and I didn't look to much at the ground, I looked up to the beautifull sun-set with aurora-light and everything.

Note that this is my own opinion and I completly respect yours.

[lyndonguitar]

As a dwarf fortress-player I'm used to long-term playing as everything takes time, there is a group of gamers who like to see slow yet steady process when they play.

Do you use time warp? If yes then you are contradicting yourself.

in other words you just want to add a few more meaningless minutes into the game because you "like to see slow yet steady process"

There's no actual benefit or difference in adding lets say 30 more minutes of mid-flight boredom, with nothing to do than just stare at the ship and time warp to death.

And kerbals and their rockets are about 2-3 the size of humans as previous posts say, so the scaled down solar system is just right.

In fact if you modify the game to effectively double or triple the shown units size (1m will be shown 2m/3m) same with gravity (but actually change it behind the scenes, and the shown value won't change)

It will almost become 1:1 without sacrificing anything. But what happened? nothing, you just changed the numbers

Edited May 11, 2013 by lyndonguitar

[NovaSilisko]

Everyone, calm. Arguing about this will accomplish nothing.

[Tom K.]

Do you use time warp? If yes then you are contradicting yourself.

in other words you just want to add a few more meaningless minutes into the game because you "like to see slow yet steady process"

There's no actual benefit or difference in adding lets say 30 more minutes of mid-flight boredom, with nothing to do than just stare at the ship and time warp to death.

And kerbals and their rockets are about 2-3 the size of humans as previous posts say, so the scaled down solar system is just right.

In fact if you modify the game to effectively double or triple the shown units size (1m will be shown 2m/3m) same with gravity (but behind the scenes, shown value won't change)

It will almost become 1:1 without sacrificing anything. But what happened? nothing, you just changed the numbers

I use time-warp for when I don't have to do anything like waiting for an inter-planetary transfer but I don't mind controlling a ship up the atmosphere for 15 minutes.

A higher time-warp could be used for the up-scaling.

And yes there is difference as you will notice a planet is bigger when orbitting it, just the scale could amaze you.

I'm not begging for this feature, but I won't deny that I would like it either.

[Daze]

I use time-warp for when I don't have to do anything like waiting for an inter-planetary transfer but I don't mind controlling a ship up the atmosphere for 15 minutes.

A higher time-warp could be used for the up-scaling.

And yes there is difference as you will notice a planet is bigger when orbitting it, just the scale could amaze you.

I'm not begging for this feature, but I won't deny that I would like it either.

This is the exactly word to explain why i would this...

EDIT: Nova, a question: in future instead of bigger planets will we have bigger parts (5m for example or maybe 8-10m) for our rockets?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Daze

[lyndonguitar]

I use time-warp for when I don't have to do anything like waiting for an inter-planetary transfer but I don't mind controlling a ship up the atmosphere for 15 minutes.

A higher time-warp could be used for the up-scaling.

And yes there is difference as you will notice a planet is bigger when orbitting it, just the scale could amaze you.

I'm not begging for this feature, but I won't deny that I would like it either.

I know the view, I was playing Orbiter long before KSP, but that's just it, once you go down, you would see a rather empty, lifeless planet, Kerbin is lifeless as it is now(no size of civilization, etc, at the moment), and if you go away, it would take minutes even at timewarp to get somewhere else.

Like you, I don't mind playing 1:1 either if it was an extra feature or a mod, as long as they keep the scale of the core game untouched.

Then It would be like Orbiter but you can design and build.

[WhiteWeasel]

Why not have someone make a mod of it? Those who want 1:1 can have it while those who don't aren't bothered with it since they can not install it?

[Daze]

I know the view, I was playing Orbiter long before KSP, but that's just it, once you go down, you would see a rather empty, lifeless planet, Kerbin is lifeless as it is now(no size of civilization, etc, at the moment), and if you go away, it would take minutes even at timewarp to get somewhere else.

Like you, I don't mind playing 1:1 either if it was an extra feature or a mod, as long as they keep the scale of the core game untouched.

Then It would be like Orbiter but you can design and build.

Mhm, this sentence changed my mind, actual Kerbin is empty but when the devs will add city and clouds it will become beautiful as a 1:1 planet...

@WhiteWeasel: For now it's not possible

[JonoRig]

Ok, so your asking why wouldnt you have 1:!; lets look at it from this direction, what would making the game 1:1 scale accomplish; because either it will take a massive amount of time to do stuff (as has been suggested) or the kerbals are then made 1:1 with humans, so my question is, what would it actually bring to the game? how does it improve it, or make it more fun?

[Dr. Muttonstache]

Also, please remove the timewarp because there's no such thing like that in real life. It'll make play times longer but hey, realism right?

But who wants to wait 6-8 months to get to Duna?

I like your sarcasm, CK.

[JonoRig]

I like your sarcasm, CK.

Who doesnt enjoy well deployed sarcasm?

[Daze]

Ok, so your asking why wouldnt you have 1:!; lets look at it from this direction, what would making the game 1:1 scale accomplish; because either it will take a massive amount of time to do stuff (as has been suggested) or the kerbals are then made 1:1 with humans, so my question is, what would it actually bring to the game? how does it improve it, or make it more fun?

I don't want it for realism but only for the visual impact that a bigger planet will give instead of smaller...

But i think that this will be solved with introducing of clouds and civilization elements

[JonoRig]

I don't want it for realism but only for the visual impact that a bigger planet will give instead of smaller...

But i think that this will be solved with introducing of clouds and civilization elements

Fair enough reason, but i am obviously very limited in my thoughts, because the Demo blew my mind in terms of size; then i got the game and theres a whole solar system of massive (or small to you) planets. I think theyre the perfect size, not too much to overwhelm players, but more then enough to occupy us...

[metaphor]

Is there a mod to do this?

I know hyperedit can change the orbits of the planets, but is there a way to change their mass and size (while keeping the same texture)?

I don't want the game to have 1:1 planets by default but it would be nice to experiment with different size planets like those in the real solar system. The engines/fuel tanks and command pods are all scalable by mods, but I don't know of any mod that can do this to planets. Anyone know of one, or a way to change config files to achieve the same effect?

[JonoRig]

I believe there is a mod called hackjeb, which can be used to change gravity and the such, but nothing that can change the actual scale, i believe thats locked up in the game code and too difficult to change even if it were allowed currently

[Brabbit1987]

I believe there is a mod called hackjeb, which can be used to change gravity and the such, but nothing that can change the actual scale, i believe thats locked up in the game code and too difficult to change even if it were allowed currently

The other issue if you where able to change the scale is it would not change the distance as well, so planets would be closer.

[JonoRig]

The other issue if you where able to change the scale is it would not change the distance as well, so planets would be closer.

could that not in theory be fixed with hyperedit, as you can move planets about (ive not used it, so i dont know to what extent it can be abused)

[Brabbit1987]

could that not in theory be fixed with hyperedit, as you can move planets about (ive not used it, so i dont know to what extent it can be abused)

Oh .. well then, just simply ignore what I said, if I am wrong lol. :3. I have never used it either.