Do you Cheat?

[rodion_herrera]

When it comes to logical, strength, and accuracy, machines are better. Do machines ever have faults? Yes, however far less then a human.

Would you rather be out in space with a human pilot controlling every single movement or a computer controlling every single movement? I will pick the computer every time. I feel safer that way. Also you can solve the above problem by getting rid of the manual pilot entirely. Course I don't think we are there yet, but in the future I think this would be the best solution.

If the legal system by that time would still be as we know it, I want to bear witness to the very first moment when a machine gets sentenced to "destruction/disassembly/deactivation" or "permanently impounded" after being found guilty of killing human beings due to a "landing guidance malfunction". And I keep wondering, if the victims and survivors of the said tragedy, would be content of having a machine at fault, or will they still seek that long-held belief that somewhere, somehow, a human being effed up.

Edited June 13, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[Brabbit1987]

If the legal system by that time would still be as we know it, I want to bear witness to the very first moment when a machine gets sentenced to "destruction/disassembly/deactivation" or "permanently impounded" after being found guilty of killing human beings due to a "landing guidance malfunction". And I keep wondering, if the victims and survivors of the said tragedy, would be content of having a machine at fault, or will they still seek that long-held belief that somewhere, somehow, a human being effed up.

ROFL, unless people are that stupid, that wont happen. If it does happen, holy crap.

In my opinion though, it's not likely to happen like that. You have 2 choices. Human or machine. Humans make more mistakes which can cause more deaths and it's also easy to blame other humans. Machines make less ... much less mistakes and if something goes wrong, blaming a machine could happen, but it wouldn't solve anything. Destroying the machine would be stupid because you would just have to make another. You couldn't stop using the machines because it would just cause more problems due to human error.

In other words, your argument is pretty much invalid. People blaming a machine or not, it will not change anything. A machine will still perform better than a human either way. We will always fall back on it because it's simply better.

I will say it's possible the blame could be pointed toward the creator of said machine. However, that could easily be proven by taking a look at the machines programming and structural build.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[rodion_herrera]

it will not change anything.

That's where you're wrong--in a society and physical world indeed governed by laws, both social and natural, it can change everything.

[willow]

In other words, I rather play without map view (like we used to) than use cheats.

How do you ever get to other bodies in the solar sysem? If you're content with mucking about around kerbin (mun/minmus) then you don't need a map, but to get to a planet you most certainly do need some kind of navigation, like Map view.

I've modded a part to produce fuel once (one of gaby's nuclear reactors) because the kethane mod was on the brinks and I could not be bothered to keep sending up buckets of fuel. I put a fuel depot in orbit, imagined it to be filled by fuel missions in the background and played the bit I wanted to play, which was shooting rockets at Duna. I believe a long time ago I also replaced a ship that was circling duna with a ship straight from the editor. I believe I put the landing gear on backwards and fixed that or some such silly thing.

It's been repeated ad nauseum, but this is a game where the single goal is to have fun. If you get your kicks at using no help whatsoever then that's the way to play for you. But like most games it might mean "no life" rather than "l33t" skills..

[Eric S]

My point is that there are indeed people willing to argue with that (esp. pilots themselves), and in fact it can be an important real world situation, esp. in a real world LEGAL situation, because in case an airliner crashes, you now effectively have two things to blame (if it was not caused by some other external factor)--was it the pilot's fault or the autopilot's fault?

I'd like to apologize for not being very clear on this. I do tend to get distracted arguing the fine points rather than the important points. My argument on this wasn't meant to demean those that do these wonderful things, or to try to argue over at what point fly by wire gets complex enough to start feeling more like an autopilot than a moderated control or to even address the general situation of the skill required to pilot things.

I was looking at the specific case of arguing that KSP's lack of automation is the right thing to have based on how the first moon landing required pilots to have some piloting skill not being accurate, as the level of automation even in that case was distinctly higher than KSP's total lack thereof. Which, to be honest, is a side argument in itself, since how realistic something is doesn't have a direct correlation to how fun that something is.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Eric S

[rodion_herrera]

I remember the time when Greg Lemond (USA) almost got disqualified in the 1989 Tour de France (and he was winning it at that point!) because he used a new kind of bicycle accessory to aid his streamlining...

His new bike featured the Scott aero bars, designed to put the rider into a tucked, streamlined position, thus gaining advantage over other riders who weren't in that position. Many riders, including France's Laurent Fignon, who was in 2nd place, trailing behind Lemond, felt that Lemond was cheating by using those handlebars...

...and now, that handlebar is already de facto standard in ALL time trial racing.

I guess what I'm trying to say, sometimes a sport, and even a game, can evolve to incorporate very legit and non-cheat things that, once upon a time, may have been viewed as cheating.

I was looking at the specific case of arguing that KSP's lack of automation is the right thing to have based on how the first moon landing required pilots to have some piloting skill not being accurate, as the level of automation even in that case was distinctly higher than KSP's total lack thereof. Which, to be honest, is a side argument in itself, since how realistic something is doesn't have a direct correlation to how fun that something is.

I just realized that, by this post, we are actually on the same side of the fence, Eric LOL And I also apologize if I came out rather harsh in the counter arguments.

Edited June 13, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[Brabbit1987]

That's where you're wrong--in a society and physical world indeed governed by laws, both social and natural, it can change everything.

Can you give me an example of such a case that's similar?

[acealeam]

Docked at around 0.1 m/s and the space station exploded, so I did reload. Does that count?

[Tokay Gris]

Usually, I don't "cheat".

But since I put so large ships in orbit that need refuelling and I have done that so many times I think I did show I can do it with or without MechJeb.

So for that purpose only, I edit the persistence-file. Fill up the tanks. Usually, I send one tanker, dock it, transfer the fuel, undock, edit the file, redock, transfer the fuel... until the vessel is filled up to the brim.

I MIGHT in the future use some other means to put a vessel into orbit, with the idea that it is "actually" assembled in orbit. But so far, all the stuff in orbit got there the usual way: With the help of "moar BOOSTERS!".

I failed to put five Jumbo-tanks in orbit, not because of lack of thrust, but because the connection to the rest was too weak and even zillions of struts didn't fix this... But I will not cheat doing this. Either I get it to work, or it stays on the ground. In thousand little pieces...

[rodion_herrera]

Can you give me an example of such a case that's similar?

Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

On paper, it was a plain accident and autoland system malfunction. There was an error, the autoland system was reading a false altitude in the radar altimeter, which caused and early descent and then the crash. However, as they say in our LEGAL realistic world, you cannot blame the machine, so they had to pin the accident on someone. So they concluded "pilot inattention" was the cause of the accident, which can be further generalized as pilot error. Too bad both pilots DIED during the crash, so they couldn't defend their side. I mean, how can you cite pilot inattention, when the very reason why you have automated systems is, the pilot would be too busy doing other things, to notice such small errors (the ground crews admitted you won't spot that radar error right away if you are in the cockpit, esp. while monitoring an autoland procedure). That is the whole point of autoland anyways!. Even my pilot friends who fly for our local airlines, thought that the judgement for the accident was too hastily done, and the main reason why they could do that was because the pilots died. What about the dead pilots' families? Now they couldn't even get compensation for their dead, because now their loved ones are branded as the reason for the accident. Well, as they say, that's what the law said. Now I want to wait til they prosecute an autopilot.

Edited June 13, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[Brabbit1987]

Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

On paper, it was a plain accident and autoland system malfunction. There was an error, the autoland system was reading a false altitude in the radar altimeter, which caused and early descent and then the crash. However, as they say in our LEGAL realistic world, you cannot blame the machine, so they had to pin the accident on someone. So they concluded "pilot inattention" was the cause of the accident, which can be further generalized as pilot error. Too bad both pilots DIED during the crash, so they couldn't defend their side. I mean, how can you cite pilot inattention, when the very reason why you have automated systems is, the pilot would be too busy doing other things, to notice such small errors (the ground crews admitted you won't spot that radar error right away if you are in the cockpit, esp. while monitoring an autoland procedure). That is the whole point of autoland anyways!. Even my pilot friends who fly for our local airlines, thought that the judgement for the accident was too hastily done, and the main reason why they could do that was because the pilots died. What about the dead pilots' families? Now they couldn't even get compensation for their dead, because now their loved ones are branded as the reason for the accident. Well, as they say, that's what the law said. Now I want to wait til they prosecute an autopilot.

That didn't prove anything. That only showed that people will still blame others. It still doesn't change anything. They will still continue to use auto pilot.

Anyway, somewhere along the lines you seem to forget the solution I stated was to not have a pilot so this example doesn't fit very well since it had a pilot that the blame could be pinned on.

If anything it proved my point even more since they still use auto pilot.

Edit: I also want to point out, machines are not currently capable of EVERYTHING yet. You should only let the auto pilot do what it's capable of doing alone.

Edit Edit: Was about to say it was in 1951, then realized that was the flight number XD. Almost a derp moment there.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[rodion_herrera]

Anyway, somewhere along the lines you seem to forget the solution I stated was to not have a pilot so this example doesn't fit very well since it had a pilot that the blame could be pinned on.

Which is precisely why, even though we DO HAVE the technology right now to do it, we don't allow it yet, mainly because our SOCIAL LAWS aren't developed enough to handle or deal with the MORAL RAMIFICATIONS of a fully automated aircraft failing to deliver passengers from one airport to the other. So my argument still stands--unless there are RADICAL CHANGES in the way our laws are implemented, you will not see your fully automated machines delivering people or cargo around. And THAT is what I meant by "laws changing" everything--it just changed your "bright future" of full automation didn't it?

[Brabbit1987]

Which is precisely why, even though we DO HAVE the technology right now to do it, we don't allow it yet, mainly because our SOCIAL LAWS aren't developed enough to handle or deal with the MORAL RAMIFICATIONS of a fully automated aircraft failing to deliver passengers from one airport to the other. So my argument still stands--unless there are RADICAL CHANGES in the way our laws are implemented, you will not see your fully automated machines delivering people or cargo around. And THAT is what I meant by "laws changing" everything--it just changed your "bright future" of full automation didn't it?

The reason is because machines are not fully capable of complete auto pilot yet. I understand what you mean, but I really don't think this has as much to do with laws and such as it has more to do with the actual science and understanding of what a machine is currently capable of. However, we do know time and time again as machines advance they will be able to handle tasks we can't. It will come to the point where these things will HAVE to change. You act like these things stay the same forever. Which they do not.

[rodion_herrera]

The reason is because machines are not fully capable of complete auto pilot yet. I understand what you mean, but I really don't think this has as much to do with laws and such as it has more to do with the actual science and understanding of what a machine is currently capable of. However, we do know time and time again as machines advance they will be able to handle tasks we can't. It will come to the point where these things will HAVE to change. You act like these things stay the same forever. Which they do not.

LOL and thus again, I say, I will wait to see that happen. Don't think it will happen in my lifetime though. For you to understand, you have to have lived in my country for the past 40 years.

[Brabbit1987]

LOL and thus again, I say, I will wait to see that happen. Don't think it will happen in my lifetime though. For you to understand, you have to have lived in my country for the past 40 years.

Well ... with the way tech is going .. it is going to happen eventually. All it will take is numbers and percentages. With this mere human you can have a 90% chance of survival! But with this computer you can have a 99.9% chance of survival! The proof is in the pudding. If a computer can't save the aircraft .. how would a pilot who is less capable be able to do it? The only thing that will happen is it will still crash and give people someone to blame.

[Eric S]

LOL and thus again, I say, I will wait to see that happen. Don't think it will happen in my lifetime though. For you to understand, you have to have lived in my country for the past 40 years.

Can't speak for the Philippines, But there's already been some discussion in some states about licensing Google's self-driving car to let it drive without a human ready to take over at any second. I'm sure that will bring to light all sorts of issues like this.

[PwnedDuck]

Sometimes, stations that took hours to put into position just disappear. That isn't my fault, and I'm not spending hours fixing it, so I just hyperedit an exact copy into the same position. The 0.20 update trapped my mun-base of 5 buildings (8 launches to construct in total) 200 feet under the surface. Doing anything with them made them explode. I'm not sorry for using hyperedit to get them back on the surface intact; I'm not throwing away 10 hours of flight time for a glitch's sake... Otherwise, the only mod I use is mechjeb, and that is for takeoffs (which are incredibly boring yet require attention to not mess up), for data panels, and for doing things I have already regularly done (flying yet another Kerbin-Mun transfer proves nothing about my abilities, only my patience and ability to watch numbers slowly increase, which are not things I bought the game for). I do all my landings manually as well.

[irichey25]

I only cheat when I loose my patience. For example: If I'm trying to rendezvous with my Space Station, it's taken me hours in real life to get to it when the moment I'm about to dock with the clamp BOOM! Ran out of RCS. Then I start to slowly glide away from the space station. Then I'll just use the infinite RCS cheat. That's just an example.

Note: I do have Mechjeb, but I don't consider Mechjeb cheating as long as you don't abuse it.

Edited June 13, 2013 by irichey25

[John FX]

I only cheat when I loose my patience. For example: If I'm trying to rendezvous with my Space Station, it's taken me hours in real life to get to it when the moment I'm about to dock with the clamp BOOM! Ran out of RCS. Then I start to slowly glide away from the space station. Then I'll just use the infinite RCS cheat. That's just an example.

Note: I do have Mechjeb, but I don't consider Mechjeb cheating as long as you don't abuse it.

Meh, I built my first station and hadn`t learned about RCS. I just thought docking was hardcore. You could have still docked.

[grawl]

I never cheated at KSP

Seriously, never. My game-time is kind of precious ^^ so I don't spend it learning how to.

[nettcod]

Does Whack-A-Kerbal count as cheating?

[Lheim]

I've used some of the debug menu commands while testing designs. If you think about it, any designs created in the real world are going to be thoroughly tested and they're going to KNOW if X system works properly before sending it off to Mars. So why oughtn't I hack gravity and test my rcs hoverpod on the launch pad, call it a 'simulation', end flight, and call it a day before sending it off?

As for Mechjeb - I can totally see the appeal of it to automate repetitious tasks. The reason I'm not using it now is because I'd like the satisfaction of mastering an achievement in the game before turning it over to automation. I don't see the big controversy; hell, the developers have flat out said that with career mode you'll be able to turn over some tasks to AI control if your kerbals are rated for it. So.. in-game mechjeb is coming, just with an RPG minigame about the astronaut complex. Fine by me. Fine by me if you also have to 'train' your kerbals by accomplishing tasks yourself before you can turn it over to them.

[Regnium]

Bugs destroyed my Mun Outpost two times / im still not cheating! Now i try it the third time :3

[Brotoro]

Does Whack-A-Kerbal count as cheating?

Only if you aren't having fun.